State, v. Rivers
| Decision Date | 05 September 2000 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . State of Missouri, Appellant, v. Larry D. Rivers, Respondent. Case Number: WD58153 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Hon. Michael Ordnung
Counsel for Appellant: David M. Grace
Counsel for Respondent: Geroge Allen Pickett
Opinion Summary:
The state filed an interlocutory appeal of the circuit court's order to exclude a discovery deposition from trial evidence. Larry D. Rivers deposed a state witness who died before the trial, and the state sought to use the deposition as evidence in its case-in-chief.
DISMISSED.
Division holds: Section 547.200 permits the state an interlocutory appeal of any order that results in suppressing evidence. The effect of the circuit court's order was not to suppress evidence, because suppression applies to evidence that was illegally obtained. Rivers did not argue that the state illegally obtained the deposition; he argued that it did not comply with procedural Rule 24.14 in conducting the deposition.
Larry Rivers conducted a discovery deposition of Lanette Macias, a witness for the state. Macias died before trial, so the state wanted to use the deposition in substitution for her testimony. The circuit court sustained Rivers' objection to the state's use of the deposition in its case-in-chief, and the state filed this interlocutory appeal. Because the ruling is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.
Section 547.200, RSMo Supp. 1999, permits the state an interlocutory appeal from any order "the substantive effect of which results in: . . . [s]uppressing evidence." Suppression of evidence, as used in section 547.200, is linked directly to section 542.296, RSMo 1994, which lists five bases for a motion to suppress.1 State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo. App. 1984). The statutory grounds for a motion to suppress involve illegal or warrantless search or seizure. State v. Dwyer, 847 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Mo. App. 1992).
Rule 25.15 prohibits the state from using the deposition as evidence in its case-in-chief.2 The circuit court was obligated to exclude the deposition from evidence because the state did not take the deposition in compliance with Rule 25.14.
The state argues that a discovery deposition fits within the definition of "judicial proceeding" contained in section 575.010(3). Even if this general statute were relevant to this case, rules 25.14 and 25.15 establish specific requirements for the state to conduct and introduce a deposition in a criminal case.
Because the state is not appealing the suppression of evidence, it has no grounds for this interlocutory appeal. Lacking jurisdiction to consider the appeal, we dismiss it.
1. The statute says, "The motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Jackson v. Parker
...was not illegally obtained. See § 547.200.1(3) RSMo (2000); State v. Puckett, 146 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo.App.2004) ; State v. Rivers, 26 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo.App.2000). If the case were tried to conclusion with the recording excluded and judgment entered for Defendant upon a verdict of acquittal,......
-
State v. Eisenhouer
...evidence that is not objectionable as violating any rule of evidence, but that instead has been illegally obtained. State v. Rivers, 26 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo. App. 2000), citing State v. Dwyer, 847 S.W.2d 102, 103 (Mo. App. 1992). It follows that "suppressing evidence" as used in this section......
-
State v. Puckett
...547.200.1(3) is related or linked to the grounds provided in section 542.296.5, which governs motions to suppress. State v. Rivers, 26 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo.App. W.D.2000); State v. Swope, 939 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo.App. S.D.1997); State v. Zancauske, 804 S.W.2d 851, 852 (Mo.App.1991); State v. ......
-
State v. Moad
...for a motion to suppress. N.D.C., 229 S.W.3d at 603 n. 4; State v. Puckett, 146 S.W.3d 19, 22 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); State v. Rivers, 26 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo. App. W.D.2000). When an interlocutory order does not arise from one of these statutory parameters, it is not regarded as a motion to sup......