State v. Richards
| Decision Date | 02 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 36142,36142 |
| Citation | 536 S.W.2d 779 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lonnie Lee RICHARDS, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Three |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard Moore, Public Defender, and Melvin G. Franke, Public Defender, 20th Judicial Circuit, Union, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean and Timothy J. Verhagen, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Daniel M. Buescher, Pros. Atty., Union, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant-appellant, Lonnie Lee Richards, was charged, tried and found guilty of the offense of robbery in the first degree. § 560.120. In accordance with the jury verdict he was sentenced by the circuit court of Franklin County to six years in the department of corrections. He appeals. For reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm.
A jury could reasonably find that during the afternoon of January 13, 1973, Franklin Blanton, a farmer and the victim of the alleged offense, was in St. Clair, Missouri, at the 'Coon Hound Corral' (sometimes referred to as the 'Okay Corral' or the 'Ozark Tavern') drinking several beers. He arrived at the tavern at about 3:00 p.m. When he went to the tavern, he had '$20 on me.' While there, he 'got to talking to Jim Simmons,' a friend of appellant, Lonnie Lee Richards, and Robert Lee Branson. Jim Simmons also has a brother--Don. Mr. Blanton indicated to Jim Simmons that he 'would like to go to Sullivan,' and Jim Simmons '' Mr. Blanton told Jam that he would 'give $3' for the ride to Sullivan. According to Mr. Blanton, Jim Simmons then left the tavern, came back a little later and told him the ride was 'out there.' Mr. Blanton left the tavern; a 'blue car with a light vinyl top' was in front; two men were in the car, and he entered the back seat on the passenger side. The car 'took off'. During the ride, according to Mr. Blanton, no conversation took place. While still in St. Clair, one of the men in the car--a blond--later identified as the appellant-Richards, indicated that he had to go to the rest room, but instead of stopping at a filling station, the car stopped 'behind a gray house.' The 'blond' got out of the car, and Mr. Blanton and the other man waited. They waited 'five or ten minutes.' The driver pulled around the building and headed down the street. As they approached the intersection of St. Clair and Duckworth, Mr. Blanton saw The blond got back into the auto, and the three started for Sullivan. On Interstate 44, appellant-Richards indicated that he was 'getting sick,' so they pulled off to the side. When they did so, the two men, according to Mr. Blanton, 'had the guns on me.' The blond had both guns and 'throwed the other one to the black headed man (Branson).' One gun looked like It looked 'blue.' They told 'me, says, 'Shed your coat. Give me your billfold and empty your pockets.'' 'They told me, they said, 'Old man, you won't be needing your billfold, the place you're going.' . . . 'Old man, we are going to kill you.''
The two men took a blue jacket with a fur collar and $18.00. The men handed the wallet back and Mr. Blanton was told, "Now get out, Old Man."
Mr. Blanton walked to his 'boss" home, and the sheriff was called. Eventually, two officers came and they and Mr. Blanton proceeded to the tavern to see if the men were there, but they were not. They then proceeded to the 'white house,' and while in the house, Mr. Blanton was shown a 'school book' from which he identified the 'blond'--Lonnie Lee Richards. The next day, Mr. Blanton was called to the sheriff's office and there identified that defendant in a lineup.
Eventually, the appellant was charged for the alleged offense, and trial was held on January 4, 1974.
During the voir dire examination, the prosecutor in addressing the panel stated that:
Defense counsel sought to challenge Juror Pohlman for cause because The prosecutor then said, The court replied, 'Yes, it was but I'm not going to disqualify him.' The court thereupon overruled the challenge for cause.
During the trial, Mr. Blanton was interrogated by the prosecutor during his examination in chief as to whether he (Blanton) had been 'convicted of the crime of the abominable and detestable crime against nature in 1955.' Mr. Blanton admitted that he had been. 2
On cross-examination, defense counsel desired to go into some detail concerning the 'abominable, detestable crime against nature,' and objected to the court's ruling limiting 'my cross-examination of this man about his conviction on this abominable and detestable crime against nature. . . .' The court did not permit counsel to go into the details. However, in the defendant's case, Mr. Elmer Maschmann, the clerk of the circuit court of Franklin County, was called and permitted to read the information filed against Mr. Blanton, which detailed the offense 'against nature.' This was permitted, although over the objection of the prosecutor.
James Simmons testified for the state. In effect, he corroborated the testimony of Mr. Blanton relative to the ride to Sullivan, and testified that after his conversation with Blanton, he went down to 'Fuzzie Sohn's' tavern to get 'Robert (Branson) and them to see if they would take him up there (to Sullivan).' Simmons told them that Blanton said 'he would give them $3 to take him up there.' Simmons, together with Robert Branson and Lonnie Lee Richards, went back to the 'Coon Hound Corral,' told Blanton and observed Blanton enter the car.
During the trial the state called the stepfather of the defendant--Mr. Melvin Greeley, who lived in the 'white house' in St. Clair. He testified that on the evening of the 13th two deputies and Mr. Blanton came to his house. Mr. Blanton looked over some pictures in a scrapbook, and after being asked some question, Mr. Greeley went to the kitchen and 'checked to see if my camping--little blank pistol and a pellet BB pistol were in the cabinet.' One was 'sort of a blue looking gun.' One gun Upon examination, the guns were not there. No objection was made at this time. At the beginning of Mr. Greeley's cross-examination, however defense counsel objected to Mr. Greeley's testimony concerning the missing guns because 'it has not been connected with the gun described by the alleged victim as being used by the Defendant and his accomplice.'
At first the trial court indicated that the guns had not been 'connected,' but after the prosecutor reminded the court that Mr. Blanton's testimony indicated the appellant went into the 'white house,' the court overruled the objection, since
Two deputies testified for the state--Deputy Sheriff Michael Scott and Deputy Sheriff Roger Bartolo. Deputy Scott testified that he responded to a call on the evening of January 13, to go to the home of Mr. Armstrong (presumably Mr. Blanton's 'boss'). He was met by the Armstrongs and Mr. Blanton. After some conversation, the two deputies left with Mr. Blanton and went to locate the two men. They finally went to the Greeley residence. While there, Deputy Scott testified that Mr. Blanton looked at a book containing pictures, and Blanton 'selected a picture from a page contained within the book.' Deputy Scott saw the picture selected by Blanton--it was that of Lonnie Lee Richards. An arrest order was then put out. The following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berry, 61750
...the burden of demonstrating the putative error rose to the level of manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. State v. Richards, 536 S.W.2d 779, 788 (Mo.App. 1976). The State's evidence (testimony by the victim, her sister and an officer) showed that the victim viewed only one lineup ......
-
State v. Williams, 36168
...by Rule 27.20(c), and defendant's reliance on plain error is unavailing. State v. Gibson, 540 S.W.2d 952 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Richards, 536 S.W.2d 779 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Johnson, 536 S.W.2d 851 Defendant alleges that the chain of custody of the clear vial was broken and that the qua......
-
State v. King
...error doctrine urged by defendant requires a showing of "manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice", Rule 27.20(c), State v. Richards, 536 S.W.2d 779, 788 (Mo.App.1976). On the facts in this case, no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice could have been caused by the failure to in......
-
State v. Pride
...any previous judgment, opinion or bias, either as respects the parties or the subject matter of the controversy. See State v. Richards, 536 S.W.2d 779, 785 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Hicks, 530 S.W.2d 396, 398 (Mo.App.1975). In brief, appellant argues that the trial judge should have removed t......