State v. Sayles
| Decision Date | 13 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 40312,40312 |
| Citation | 579 S.W.2d 748 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cedric SAYLES, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles H. Staples, Sp. Public Defender, Staples & Willis, St. Louis, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Steven D. Steinhilber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree burglary, assault with intent to kill and first degree robbery. His appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court was transferred by mandate to this court for opinion.
The single point raised in defendant's appeal is that the seizure of the murder weapon from defendant's parents' house was the result of an unconstitutional search. We affirm.
The evidence of defendant's guilt is overwhelming. The victims of his ferine attack were an elderly woman and her daughter in their St. Louis home. Both women were shot by a .22 caliber pistol the daughter's wound being mortal. A bullet, pierced the mother's body, but her wound was not fatal. However, she succumbed to a heart attack prior to the trial. The defendant was observed in the yard of the victims' home before a series of gunshots were heard. He was seen carrying a pistol and was positively identified on the victims' property shortly before and after the shootings. He was also observed driving the victims' auto from their garage and was subsequently captured by police in a foot chase after he had fled from the stolen auto.
The day after the crime spree a police officer participating in the investigation went to defendant's parents' home. Defendant's mother was present and the police officer told her that he would like permission to search the house for the gun used in the homicide. According to the police officer at the motion to suppress evidence, he asked the mother: "I'd like to search Cedric's (defendant's) room And any place that he might stay in the house." (emphasis added) After making a telephone call to her husband (defendant's father) 1, the mother gave the police officer permission to make the search that he had requested. Defendant's brother who was home on leave from the Army was directed by the mother to take the police officer to the defendant's bedroom on the third floor of the house which was shared by the defendant, his 21 year old brother and 21 year old cousin. A brief search of the bedroom revealed nothing. The police officer then asked the defendant's brother: "if there was anywhere else in the house that Cedric might spend a lot of time, and Carl (the brother) advised me that they had like a recreation room in the basement, and Cedric sometimes slept down there." The defendant's brother took the police officer to the basement where the search for the weapon continued. The brother The gun was taken by the police officer and was ballistically determined to be the weapon used to shoot the victims.
The defendant moved to suppress the gun as evidence in the trial, claiming that its seizure was unconstitutionally infirm as a result of an unlawful, warrantless search. In support of the motion to suppress, the defendant has acknowledged that the mother gave the police officer consent to search the defendant's bedroom on the third floor of the house. However, the mother in contradiction to the police officer's testimony steadfastly denied any consent to search the basement. The defendant concedes that there may be rightful consentive search when consent is given by one with proper standing. And defendant does not contest the fact that the mother could and properly did give consent to the search of the bedroom, which defendant shared with his brother and cousin. His argument is that the state must prove consent by clear and convincing evidence not by a mere preponderance of the evidence. Here, the evidence is undisputed that the basement where the pistol was found was used by nearly everyone in the house as a sleeping quarters in the hot summer and as a recreational area. The defendant and his entire family made use of the basement. The conflict arises as to whether the consent by the mother of a search in the house extended to the basement area where the gun was found. The police officer said that he was given such consent when he asked to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kleypas
...it is the function of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and resolve such conflicts. State v. Sayles, 579 S.W.2d 748 (Mo.App.1979). The testimony of the sheriff, which the trial court was entitled to believe, established that he did ask and was granted permission ......
-
State v. Johns
...of the evidence that the consent was voluntarily given. State v. DuBose, 617 S.W.2d 509, 514 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Sayles, 579 S.W.2d 748, 751 (Mo.App.1979). Appellant argues that the evidence shows that his mother had not freely and voluntarily consented to either the police officers' in......
-
State v. DuBose
...S.W.2d at 215. In Missouri, the state must prove consent to a warrantless search by a preponderance of the evidence. State v. Sayles, 579 S.W.2d 748, 751 (Mo.App.1979). In determining whether consent was voluntary, courts must consider the "totality of the surrounding circumstances." Schnec......
-
Sayles v. State, 54497
...as a result of events that occurred on the evening of July 24, 1976. The brutal facts of the crimes can be found in State v. Sayles, 579 S.W.2d 748 (Mo.App.1979), in which this court affirmed the movant's conviction on direct Movant subsequently filed a Rule 27.26 motion. He alleged that hi......