State v. Rayford, 42304
| Decision Date | 13 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42304,42304 |
| Citation | 611 S.W.2d 377 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard Wayne RAYFORD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard C. Bresnahan, Clayton, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of burglary in the second degree, and the jury assessed his punishment at five years imprisonment. The judge sentenced him to a five-year term in the Department of Corrections. Defendant appeals.
On March 5, 1979, St. Louis police officers acting on the statement of a person arrested in connection with a burglary on Plover Avenue went to defendant's home and arrested him. The police officers did not have a warrant for his arrest. Subsequent to the arrest, defendant made various oral statements and a written statement to two police officers and the victim of the burglary. On appeal, he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.
Defendant's first point on appeal alleges that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the written and oral statements he had made. Defendant argues that the court erred because these statements were the "direct result" of an illegal arrest of defendant in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1
Defendant did not preserve this point for review. In Missouri, the rule is well established that:
(w)hen a motion to suppress evidence is denied and the evidence subsequently offered at the trial, defendant must then object to the admission of the evidence with a proper statement of the reasons for the objection, present the matter in his motion for a new trial, and brief the issue on appeal in order to preserve it for appellate review.
State v. Howard, 564 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo.App.1978).
Defendant first objected to admission of his statements into evidence, because of the alleged invalidity of his arrest, in his pretrial motion to suppress the statements. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. At trial, however, the victim of the burglary and two police officers testified in regard to the written and oral statements made by defendant at the police station, and one of the officers read the text of the defendant's written statement into the record. Defendant offered no objection to this testimony. Objection was made to the admission into evidence of defendant's handwritten statement, but this objection came only after a full disclosure of defendant's statements had already been received into evidence without objection. The grounds now raised were not asserted in this objection. 2 The defense's failure to properly object leaves nothing for us to review. State v. Hulsey, 557 S.W.2d 715 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Redd, 550 S.W.2d 604 (Mo.App.1977).
Defendant has not requested that we review this point under the "plain error rule," Rule 29.12(b), and we decline to do so sua sponte.
Defendant next contends that his motion for a continuance on the ground of the absence of a witness was erroneously denied by the trial court. At the end of the second day of trial, the defendant presented what appeared to be his last witness. He then presented a motion for judgment of acquittal "at the close of all the evidence," which the court overruled. The court recessed until the following morning, at which time the instruction conference was held. At the conclusion of the conference, the defense requested a continuance because of the failure of a witness to appear. The defense attorney admitted that the witness had not been subpoenaed by the defendant. The court denied the motion for a continuance.
We note that a motion for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gill, WD
...because appellant failed to object to the admission of the statements when the evidence was introduced at trial. State v. Rayford, 611 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Mo.App.1981). However, we shall examine this issue ex The state bears the burden of proving the voluntariness of a confession by a preponde......
-
State v. Cook
...complains, other than the blood sample and toxicology report, leaves us nothing to review regarding that evidence. State v. Rayford, 611 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Mo.App. E.D.1981). Not only did Defendant fail to properly object at trial to most of the evidence he now challenges, but he also failed ......
-
State v. Fields, 42103
...(Mo.1967); State v. Powers, 613 S.W.2d 955, 959 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Manning, 612 S.W.2d 823, 827 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Rayford, 611 S.W.2d 377, 378 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Ethelbert, 611 S.W.2d 379, 380-381 The facts presented here raise the question of whether this rule should always......
-
State v. Garrett
...his objection, which he based on the hearsay rule. The eastern district of this court faced a similar set of facts in State v. Rayford, 611 S.W.2d 377 (Mo.App. E.D.1981). In Rayford, the defendant lodged a pre-trial objection, by way of motion, to the admission of statements he made to poli......