State v. Patterson, 62089
| Decision Date | 14 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 62089,62089 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dale PATTERSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
James W. Fletcher, Public Defender, Gary L. Gardner, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Nancy Applequist, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of capital murder, § 565.001, RSMo 1978. The state waived the death penalty and defendant was therefore sentenced to life without probation or parole for fifty years. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Mo.Const. Art. V, § 3.
We reverse and remand. Because of the disposition made, a lengthy recitation of the facts is unnecessary. Defendant was charged with murdering a woman he allegedly raped to prevent her from testifying against him on the rape charge. It is uncontroverted that the state failed to disclose material information to defendant in violation of former Rule 25.32(A)(9) (now Rule 25.03(A)(9)), to wit: That the state agreed to dismiss charges of burglary second degree and stealing over $150 against a state's witness, Timothy Woodcox, in exchange for his testimony against defendant. 1
Woodcox's testimony was prejudicial to defendant. According to Woodcox, defendant stated that he was going to kill the victim and, at a later date, that he did not do it, that Wink (Preston Stayton) did. This information was given to the police and was before the jury. It was followed by the testimony of the police officer who questioned defendant and testified that defendant made an oral confession. Defendant testified in his own defense that he did not kill the victim, Addie Wheeler, because he had been advised by counsel that he had an excellent chance of acquittal on the rape charge. 2 Woodcox's testimony, if believed, was a strong preface to the officer's testimony. It supported and reinforced the idea that defendant had something to confess, which is what he did, according to the officer. It all fits together. Woodcox's credibility as a witness was therefore a significant issue in the case. That Woodcox made a deal with the prosecutor is clearly important in judging his credibility and the jury was entitled to know about it. State v. McClain, 498 S.W.2d 798, 800 (Mo. banc 1973). Defendant was prejudiced by not having this information. In making this observation we are not questioning the sufficiency of the confession to support the verdict once the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blair v. Armontrout
...claim that the prosecution knowingly used the perjured testimony of witness Jones because this court did not consider State v. Patterson, 618 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.1981) (en banc), in its earlier The district court refused to consider these two claims, ruling that the claims were successive, and t......
-
Blair v. Armontrout
...their agreements in past cases. Id. at 71. Next, Blair attempted to offer evidence of similar conduct by Bell in Missouri v. Patterson, 618 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.1981) (en banc). In Patterson, Bell had agreed to drop burglary charges against the State's chief witness, Woodcox, but refused to discl......
-
State v. Scott
...and "simple justice required" the defendant be allowed to meet a critical element of the state's case. Id. at 47. In State v. Patterson, 618 S.W.2d 664, 665 (Mo. banc 1981), the defendant was tried for murdering his rape victim. The state failed to disclose that charges had been dropped aga......
-
State v. Parker
...had a proper record to consider or where the facts were uncontroverted. E.g., Hayes v. State, 711 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1986); State v. Patterson, 618 S.W.2d 664 (Mo. banc 1981). Indeed, as the Supreme Court noted in an ancillary comment in Weeks v. State, 140 S.W.3d 39, 42 n. 2 (Mo. banc 20......