State v. Scott
| Citation | 479 S.W.2d 438 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 55857,55857 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jesse SCOTT, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
George A. Adolf, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant, Jesse Scott, was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, in connection with the death, on March 31, 1969, of one Charles Thomas at 4416 Red Bud in St. Louis.
The question on this appeal is whether appellant was entitled, upon request prior to and during trial, to inspect the substance of an oral statement concerning 'this particular homicide' made by appellant to Detective Herbert Riley on November 18, 1969. The following transpired during direct examination of Detective Herbert Riley before the jury:
BY MR. McDONALD:
'Q Will you state your name, please?
'A detective Herbert Riley.
'Q And you're a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, is that correct, of St. Louis? A That's correct, I am.
'Q And how long have you been a police officer?
'A Fourteen years.
'Q Are you assigned to any particular unit here in St. Louis?
'A Homicide.
'Q During the course of your years there at Homicide, and more specifically directing your attention to 1969, did you assist in the investigation of the homicide of Charlie Thomas?
'A I did.
'Q And did you arrest or assist in the arrest of a Jesse Scott? A I did.
'Q (By Mr. McDonald) Now, Officer, where did you arrest Jesse Scott? A In Chicago, Illinois.
'Q And specifically where did you go to get him?
'A At 1111 State Street, Chicago Police Headquarters in Chicago, Illinois.
'Q What was the date of that arrest? A November 17, 1969.
'Q November 17, 1969? A Yes.
'Q And do you recall the time of day that you left Chicago?
'A As I recall, it was sometime around eleven a.m., maybe shortly thereafter.
'Q How long did it take you to get back to St. Louis?
'A We arrived back in St. Louis to Police Headquarters shortly after five p. m.
'Q Did you have occasion ever to see Mr. Scott again concerning this homicide? A The following morning.
'Q What then, if anything, did he tell you on the morning of November 18, 1969?
'A Jesse Scott told me that about two days before the fatal stabbing of Charlie Thomas, a friend of his whom he declined to name for personal reasons had came to him and told him about an old man who lived over on Red Bud, and he thought that the old man might have some money as he owned some property, and wanted Jesse to go with him to stick the old man up. Jesse asked him where the old man lived, after which his friend took him over to Red Bud and pointed to a house, 4416 Red Bud. Jesse said at this time when he observed this house, he recognized this house as being the house of his brother-in-law's grandfather. Jesse said that he then told his friend that he knew the old man. 'Let's leave him alone.'
'Q What else did he tell you at that time?
'A He said that after indicating to his friend that he knew the old man, to leave him alone, they decided to walk away. He said the following day he again seen this friend of his at which time his friend says that he had an idea that might work and no one would get hurt. He said he knew enough about the old man that the old man wouldn't let him in unless they could make the old man think that they knew the same people, so Jesse said that his friend said 'Well, I'll use your name and gain entrance that way' and he says 'Then, I'll go in and I'll stick him up and after the old man tells the police that Jesse Scott did it, the police will pick you up and when they put you in the showup the old man won't be able to identify you, and we'll all be free, everything will be all right.' So Jesse stated that he had just lost his job, needed some money, that he thought it would be all right.
'So, he and--Jesse said that he and his friend then walked over to the old man's house at 4416 Red Bud where his friend went up and knocked on the door. He said, however, he didn't receive any answer so they both walked away.
'Q Did he indicate when that occurred?
'A This would be the day before, which would have been, I believe Jesse said on a Tuesday, which was the 30th of March.
'Now, Jesse continued that the following day, which was the day of the incident, March 31st, sometime around six p. m. or so, he and his friend had been in a tavern--I believe it was called the Leopard Room--at Fair and Lee, when Jesse stated that his friend said 'Do you want to try it again' at which time Jesse stated he agreed.
'So, they then went back over to 4416 Red Bud where Jesse stated his friend went up to the front door while Jesse states that he stood behind a tree by the sidewalk in front of the house. This friend went up and knocked on the door, and after a minute or so the old man opened the door. The friend and the old man talked for a minute or so, and then his friend went inside. Jesse said, at this time, once his friend got inside with the old man, Jesse stated that he then walked back to Fair and Lee to the Leopard Room Tavern in order to establish an alibi in case the police would later question him as to his whereabouts.
'He said while he was in the Leopard Room he talked to the barmaid named Cooky and the owner of the tavern named Pat.
'Jesse stated about an hour or an hour and a half later he received a phone call from his friend.
'Q (By Mr. McDonald) Now, officer, did the defendant tell you how long it was, how long he waited there at the bar before he heard from his friend?
'A He stated an hour, an hour and a half.
'Q Now, at that time did he indicate to you what this friend--he still won't tell us who he is--what this man told him on the phone? A Yes.
'Q What did he say?
'A He stated that he thought that he had killed the old man. Jesse stated he asked him where he was at. Jesse said that he was told. He then went to meet his friend. He didn't say where he met him at. Once he met his friend, he noticed that the friend was bleeding about the head and that there was blood on his clothing. Jesse stated that he asked him what happened. He said that his friend had told him that once he got inside--
'Q (By Mr. McDonald) Go ahead.
'A He stated that once he got inside that he--
'Q When you use the word 'he'--
'A This is the friend. Once the friend got in, the friend and the old man went into the kitchen and sat at the kitchen table and talked for about fifteen minutes; and that he, the friend, then pulled his knife and put it up to the old man's neck and said 'This is a stickup'. He said at this time the old man pushed him away, and they started to struggle. He said the old man then picked up a stool and hit him across the head. He said the old man then drew the stool back over his head as if to hit him again. However, when he drew the stool back this time, the stool hit the glass in the rear door and broke the glass. He said that the old man then hit him once again. He said that the friend said that he became dizzy and the old man kept--the old man now started hitting him with his fists. He said that he tried to get away; however, was unable to do so as the old man continued to hit him. Jesse said his friend said he then started sticking the old man with a knife; and as the old man continued to hit him with his fists, he continued to stab him and stab him. He said then he managed to break away.
'Jesse stated that he and his friend were both frightened at this time because Jesse stated that his friend had cut the old man and Jesse had known that his friend had used his name to gain entrance, so they were both frightened.
'Q Did he state whether or not they had disposed of the knife?
'A He said that they had hid it and were to dispose of it later.'
The following transpired during cross-examination of Detective Herbert Riley before the jury:
'BY MR. ADOLF:
'Q Now, Officer Riley, you took down notes as Jesse Scott was talking to you for those forty-five minutes, didn't you?
'A That's correct.
'Q And do you have those notes with you?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnston
...defendant be permitted to prepare to meet what thus looms as a critical element of the case against him.' " Id. at 47, quoting State v. Scott, 479 S.W.2d 438, 442 (Mo. banc 1972). As in Harrington, the "critical element" relational lies at the heart of State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503, 50......
-
State v. Scott
...of the impact of a defendant's inculpatory statement upon a jury, the need for pre-trial opportunity to prepare is evident. State v. Scott, 479 S.W.2d 438, 442 (Mo. banc 1972), quoting from State v. Johnson, 28 N.J. 133, 145 A.2d 313, 315-6 (1958). "The discovery rules seek to foster inform......
-
State v. Smothers, 61299.
...discretion must be reasonable under the circumstances, and it cannot meet that standard if it results in fundamental unfairness. State v. Scott, 479 S.W.2d 438 (Mo. banc 1972). In this case the trial court ordered a recess to permit appellant's counsel to listen to the taped statements of M......
-
State v. Zuroweste
...unfair’ when [he] was refused inspection of the substance of oral statements made by [him] to [the detective]." State v. Scott , 479 S.W.2d 438, 442-43 (Mo. banc 1972) (Internal citation omitted). Moreover, Scott cautioned:We must be mindful of the role of a confession. It frequently become......