State v. Sappington, s. 17995
| Decision Date | 24 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | 18573,Nos. 17995,s. 17995 |
| Citation | 873 S.W.2d 618 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Doyle SAPPINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. Doyle SAPPINGTON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dee Wampler, Wampler, Wampler & Catt, Springfield, for defendant-appellant/plaintiff-respondent.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Hugh L. Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent/defendant-appellant.
Doyle "Sam" Sappington (defendant) was convicted, following a jury trial, of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030.1(3), 1 (Count I), and armed criminal action, § 571.015, (Count II). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 years and 15 years. Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court granted his Rule 29.15 motion and ordered the judgment and sentence in the criminal case set aside.
Defendant appeals the judgment and conviction in the criminal case (No. 17995). The state appeals the order granting the Rule 29.15 motion (No. 18573). The appeals were consolidated pursuant to Rule 29.15(l ). This court affirms the judgment and sentence in No. 17995. The order in No. 18573 setting aside the conviction and sentence is reversed and that case remanded.
For purposes of appellate review, all evidence that tends to prove defendant's guilt, together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict of the jury, is accepted as true. State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342, 343 (Mo.1982). Evidence contrary to the verdict is disregarded. State v. Brooks, 618 S.W.2d 22, 23 (Mo. banc 1981).
State v. Hicks, 803 S.W.2d 143, 144 (Mo.App.1991).
On the evening of April 20, 1991, defendant and Karon Olson met at a bar at the Neosho Inn. Defendant arrived about 10:00 p.m. Mr. Olson arrived later. Defendant was drinking beer before Olson arrived. After Mr. Olson arrived, they "had a beer together and [they] talked." They left the Neosho Inn together about an hour after Mr. Olson arrived ("if that long") in Olson's truck. They got "three six-packs" of beer and traveled to defendant's residence--defendant needed to check on his son. Another man, Everett Franks, was with them.
Defendant and Karon Olson left defendant's house about 20 minutes later. They took two shotguns that belonged to defendant, together with ammunition. One was a .410 and the other a 20-gauge. They put the shotguns in Olson's truck and drove away. The third man, Everett Franks, did not accompany them.
Defendant and Mr. Olson went to the residence of David Clanton. It was about 2:45 a.m. the morning of April 21, 1991, when they arrived. Mr. Clanton was asleep in his house. His two sons, ages 10 and 11, were also there.
Clanton was awakened by the sound of Olson's pickup. He went to the front door of his house and looked outside. He saw Olson's truck. The passenger side of the pickup was toward the house. Mr. Clanton started through the house "to get some clothes on." A light was turned on in the kitchen. As Clanton walked through the kitchen a shot was fired through the kitchen window. Clanton "turned and went right back out the front door." He saw "a two-toned Chevrolet or GMC truck pull right down to the front door." He described what happened:
Q. [By the prosecuting attorney] All right. Down to the front door at this point. All right. What did you do?
A. I opened the door--Or I was already outside, and the light--when they pulled up beside of me, the light shined right in the passenger's face.
Q. Who was the passenger?
A. Sam Sappington.
Q. All right. Have any trouble recognizing him at all?
A. No. The light-- Q. Could you see the driver at this point? Could you see him?
A. No, I couldn't.
Q. Okay. What did you do?
A. I said, "Sam Sappington"--I recognized him and I asked him, well, what was he doing at my house in the middle of the night shooting my windows out.
Q. Okay. What did he say?
A. He didn't say anything.
Q. All right.
A. He turned--Well, now, for a moment he didn't say nothing. Then he turned and he looked at the passenger or the driver and he said,
Q. What did you do?
A. I told the boys, I said,
Q. All right. Then what happened?
A. I turned, went and stepped back inside the house, closed the door behind me and took about two steps and a shotgun blast come through the door and hit me in the back.
Q. All right. How many shotgun blasts?
A. I was hit by about four pellets. Most of the pattern--
Q. I'm sorry. Let me--Let me ask that question again. How many shotgun blasts came through that door[?]
A. Two blasts.
. . . . .
Q. How long from the time that you got up and looked out the front door till the whole thing was over with?
A. Probably about three minutes, two minutes.
Personnel from the Newton County Sheriff's department were sent to the Clanton residence after the shooting. They checked for evidence on the premises. A spent 20-gauge shotgun shell casing was found outside the front door area at Mr. Clanton's house together with "two plastic shell cups or wadding cups from the shotgun shell."
Defendant and Olson were arrested later the morning of April 21. They were in Olson's pickup. A "spent 20-gauge Federal shotgun hull that was the same kind as the one found outside the door at [Clanton's] house" was found inside the pickup. It was on the passenger's side of the truck, underneath the passenger's seat next to the door. A .410 single-shot shotgun and a 20-gauge pump action shotgun were in the truck.
Defendant's first point in his appeal from the criminal conviction is directed to the trial court's failure to declare a mistrial or grant a continuance because the state failed to timely produce "exculpatory evidence" in response to defendant's request for disclosure. Defendant contends that the trial court's failure to grant his motion for mistrial or continuance was error. He argues that the state failed "to timely produce exculpatory evidence" and that this failure "rendered [his] conviction fundamentally unfair."
Defendant timely filed a request for disclosure as permitted by Rule 25.03. Among the information requested was:
Any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the Defendant or by a Co-Defendant, a list of all witnesses to the making, and a list of all witnesses to the acknowledgment of such statements, and the last known addresses of such witnesses.
Defendant also requested:
Any material information, within the possession or control of the state, which tends to negate the guilt of the Defendant as to the offense charged, mitigate the degree of the offense charged, or reduce the punishment.
The request was filed June 4, 1991.
The state responded to defendant's request for disclosure on July 18, 1991. The response included a list of witnesses. Included on that list was "Karon Olson." The response stated, "The State does not possess nor is in control of any material or information which tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to the offense charged, mitigate the degree of the offense charged, or reduce the punishment."
The criminal case was set for trial December 10, 1991. On December 4, defendant's attorneys filed a motion requesting the trial court to require "additional disclosure ... and for sanctions for failure to properly answer Defendant's prior written request for disclosure." The motion alleged that the state had listed Karon Olson as a witness; that Karon Olson had refused to testify at the preliminary hearing in the case. The motion stated that defendant believed the state had entered into a negotiated plea agreement with Olson, and that defendant was entitled "to know the nature, extent and specifics of the plea bargain, if any, and the charge or charges if any, to which the said Karon Olson has or will plead guilty." The motion requested the trial court to "make and enter its Order requiring [the state] to fully and completely answer Defendant's Request for Disclosure...."
On Friday, December 6, 1991, the prosecuting attorney provided defendant's attorney with a copy of an unsigned plea agreement with Karon Olson. On December 9, the day before trial, the state delivered to defendant's attorney a "Supplementary Investigation Report" that revealed that a gunshot residue test was performed on defendant at the time of his arrest.
On the day of trial the prosecuting attorney produced a transcript of what was represented to be an oral statement of Karon Olson in which he responded to questions asked of him by a highway patrolman. The top of the first page of the transcript states:
From: Karon Olsen [sic]
Place: Newton County Sheriff's Department Law Library
Time: 0810 hours
Present: State Trooper Cpl. Jerry Walters
Reporting officer, Deputy Ted
Meador
Suspect: Karon Olsen [sic]
The transcript includes the following questions and answers:
Q. Tell us what happened when you left the Sappington's residence? [sic]
A. I don't know what happened. I don't remember.
Q. You don't remember?
A. No.
Q. Ok, tell us what happened when you arrived at the Clanton residence? [sic]
A. Who's Clanton? I don't even know who that is? [sic]
Q. Did you go to a residence around the Boulder City area around 3:00 o'clock this morning?
A. I don't--I was lost down those back roads. I didn't even know where I was going.
Q. Who was with you when you were driving around the back roads?
A. Sam--
Q. Doyle Sappington and yourself?
A. Yes, but I don't know where I was at.
Q. Ok, tell us about the--when the shooting took place? [sic]
A. I don't know anything about it. I just, I, I done it all, how's that. Let me, I'll...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Love
...remained the same under the original indictment, as well as the substituted version of the charging instrument. Id.; State v. Sappington, 873 S.W.2d 618, 626 (Mo.App. 1994). In his brief, Appellant has failed to demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the substitution of the third amended info......
-
State v. Bradley, 18847
...supra. Disclosure through pre-trial discovery permits a defendant to prepare in advance of trial; to avoid surprises. State v. Sappington, 873 S.W.2d 618, 623 (Mo.App.1994). "[P]rosecuting officials ... are not at liberty to act in a way that is fundamentally unfair to the defendant." State......
-
Burns v. State, 21714
...proceedings, the motion court is required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented." State v. Sappington, 873 S.W.2d 618, 626 (Mo.App.1994), citing State v. Williams, 861 S.W.2d 670, 679 (Mo.App.1993). The motion court is directed to address this issue on rema......
-
State v. Cook, s. 18457
...trial court, there is nothing for this court to review. State v. Rouse, 866 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo.App.1993). See also State v. Sappington, 873 S.W.2d 618, 626-27 (Mo.App.1994); Rogers v. State, 810 S.W.2d 125 No. 18457 is dismissed. No. 21220 is reversed and remanded for the motion court to i......