State v. Reed, 54171
| Decision Date | 09 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54171,54171,2 |
| Citation | 452 S.W.2d 71 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leotis REED, Jr., Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Patten, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Richard O. Funsch, St. Louis, for appellant.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
Leotis Reed, Jr., has been found guilty of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. He had a prior felony conviction and so the court fixed his punishment at seven years' imprisonment.
The amended information charged in part that on May 4, 1968, Marvin Wilson and Leotis Reed, Jr., 'feloniously and wilfully and by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, to wit: a knife; did rob, steal, take and carry away thirty-three dollars * * * the property of LaVert Trott(l)er by then and there putting the said LaVert Trott(l)er in fear of an immediate injury to his person * * *.' The information is not challenged in either form or substance, nevertheless, it sufficiently and properly charges the offense, not alone of first degree robbery but of robbery 'by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon.' RSMo 1959, §§ 560.120; 560.135, V.A.M.S.; State v. Jaeger, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 347. And important here in view of Reed's claim on this appeal is the fact that he was not charged alone or as an accessory (RSMo 1959, § 556.170, V.A.M.S.), it was charged that he and Wilson by means of a deadly weapon robbed Trotter. State v. Tripp, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 627; State v. Jaeger, supra.
Further in view of the ingenious argument by Reed's diligent court-appointed counsel it is necessary to briefly note the facts as established by the state's evidence and as the jury found them. About 5:30 on the morning of May 4, 1968, LaVert Trotter, a Harris Cab Company driver, with over thirty years' experience, was cruising on Delmar and Jefferson just before ending his shift at six o'clock. On Jefferson he picked up a lady passenger at the Crown Restaurant and at the Jefferson Building he picked up two men who got in the back seat of the cab and announced their destination as either 1100 Hamilton or 1100 Hodiamont. In the area of 3161 Evans the lady passenger was discharged. In the 5700 block of Page Avenue the two male passengers in the back seat 'told me to let them out.' And then Trotter said, Trotter identified the appellant Reed as the man with the knife with a 'five or six inch blade.' Trotter said that the other man, Wilson, 'didn't open his mouth to me at all' but, he said that Reed said, Wilson, in the meanwhile, reached into Trotter's pants pocket and took $33.00 belonging to Trotter. The robbers did not injure Trotter but 'they took the cab, and put me out of the car, and drove away.'
Trotter made his way to the cab office, 3828 Finney, and called the police 'but they had already caught this man and had him in the back seat' at 5500 Cote Brilliante. This came about according to Patrolman Smith who about 5:50 in the morning of May 4th saw Harris Cab number 24 'fail to make the stop sign at Clara and Cote Brilliante' and because of that fact stopped the cab. There were two men in the cab with Reed driving and when Officer Smith asked to see Reed's driver's license 'because he violated the stop sign' the other 'person jumped from the cab' and ran down an alley between Clara and Bird. The officer knew and recognized the man who fled as Marvin Wilson whom he had known for more than two years.
Upon the trial of Reed, after a severance, from the beginning of the trial to the end the defendant objected and made the point that the court erred in admitting the evidence of Wilson's flight. It was and is contended that after a severance the flight of a coindictee was immaterial upon any issue relating to Reed and his guilt and was unfairly prejudicial to his right to a fair trial. In this connection it is said that by the time Wilson fled the crime of robbery had come to an end and was a completed offense and therefore evidence of his flight was erroneous. In this manner it is sought to bring the case within the doctrine of State v. Weaver, 165 Mo. 1, 65 S.W. 308. In that case, in 1901, three hobes were charged with the murder of night watch Pew at Louisiana. Upon the trial of Weaver, after a severance, the state introduced evidence that a year before the same three hoboes had been arrested in Louisiana and on that occasion and while 'confined there in the calaboose,' one of them, Burns, had said that 'he would get even with the police of Louisiana if it took twenty years.' It was also shown that while the three defendants were being held in the jail at Bowling Green the other two, Burns and Logan, escaped. It was held that because there was no evidence 'to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turley v. Swenson
... ... John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., State" of Mo., Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent ... MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ... \xC2" ... Neither Busby v. Holman, Franklin v. Wainwright, nor Reed v. Henderson, (6th Cir., 1967) 385 F.2d 995 (the only other federal case cited by the Supreme Court ... ...
-
Garrett v. State
...offense of robbery in the first degree and there would have been no reason or basis for their trial counsel attacking it. State v. Reed, Mo., 452 S.W.2d 71; State v. Jaeger, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 347. In 1968 Billy Joe, Sam and Lonnie instituted a 27.26 proceeding in which they attacked the proce......
-
State v. Howard, 34544
...MAI's are prescribed by Rule 70.01 as a part of the Rules of Civil Procedure; they are inapplicable to criminal procedure. State v. Reed, Mo., 452 S.W.2d 71(3). Finding no error the judgment is DOWD, Acting C.J., and WEIER, J., concur. ...
-
State v. Bohlen, 55936
...case as provided in Supreme Court Rule 70.01(a), (V.A.M.R.).' The point is overruled for two reasons: First, it is held in State v. Reed (Mo.Sup.) 452 S.W.2d 71, 74 that '. . . the pattern instructions of MAI are applicable only to civil cases . . .' Second, MAI 2.01 in its present form is ......