State v. Shire
| Decision Date | 25 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16903,18063,s. 16903 |
| Citation | 850 S.W.2d 923 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Evelyn Mary SHIRE, Defendant-Appellant. Evelyn Mary SHIRE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
A jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree, § 565.021, 1 and she was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appeals, and that appeal is Case 16903. After the jury trial, defendant filed a motion under Rule 29.15 seeking postconviction relief. The motion was denied after evidentiary hearing. Defendant's appeal from that denial is Case 18063. The appeals have been consolidated and will be dealt with separately in this opinion.
Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The state's evidence showed that on August 7, 1988, the defendant caused the death of John Shire, her ex-husband, by shooting him.
Defendant and the victim were divorced in July 1988, and the victim was awarded the farm where the shooting occurred. Prior to the divorce, John Shire began dating Judy Perryman, and they were to be married in the fall of 1988. The offense took place shortly before dawn. At that time, Judy Perryman and John Shire were in bed together in the house located on the farm.
Perryman, a witness for the state, testified that she heard the click of a light switch in the hallway and awoke. Perryman saw defendant standing in the hallway. Defendant entered the bedroom and walked to the side of the bed. Perryman said to the victim, "Honey, Eve's here." Perryman saw defendant place a shotgun under the victim's nose and shoot him. The gun was within a few inches of the victim's face when it was fired. Death was instantaneous. Defendant then left the house.
Defendant's first point is that the trial court erred in overruling her challenge for cause to venireperson Laura Hough, thereby denying defendant her right to a panel of qualified jurors from which to make her peremptory challenges and denying her a fair trial in that "Hough gave answers on voir dire indicating her inability to sit as a fair and impartial juror since she indicated both that she knew defendant and that she knew Judy Perryman 'pretty well,' believed that [Perryman] was a 'pretty good woman' and that she would 'vouch for' Perryman."
In support of her first point, defendant quotes the following portions of the voir dire examination of venireperson Laura Hough:
. . . . .
Although not mentioned by defendant, the voir dire examination of venireperson Laura Hough also included the following:
[THE PROSECUTOR]: Ms. Hough, we just wanted to talk with you away from the others about what it was that you had heard or read about this case.
Can you tell us what source of information you had about this case?
In other words, have you formed any opinion based on this stuff that you've heard?
Is your acquaintanceship with any of these people such that it would cause you some difficulty to be fair and impartial to either side in this case?
Would you tend to go with Judy Perryman based on what you know?
. . . . .
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. Alfini
...was " ‘nearly indispensable’ or otherwise necessary to facilitate his communications with his attorneys."); State v. Shire , 850 S.W.2d 923, 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) ("The presence of a third person ... such as a relative or friend of the client, who is not essential to the transmission of i......
-
State v. Chowning, s. 17392
...731 (Mo.App.1989). This burden includes supplying the appellate court with a sufficient record to review the point. State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923, 932 (Mo.App.1993). Exhibits are to be filed with the appellate court, Rule 30.05, and those not filed may be considered as immaterial to the is......
-
State v. Tidwell
...admissibility of an exhibit need not be considered on appeal if the exhibit is not filed with the appellate court. State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923, 932 (Mo.App.S.D.1993); State v. Simms, 810 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Mo.App.E.D.1991). Indeed, the Supreme Court of Missouri held (in a double murder cas......
-
Pastura v. CVS Caremark
...the Matter of Guardianship of Walling, 727 P.2d 586, 592 (Okla. 1986) (presence of grandmother waived privileged); State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923, 931 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) ("The presence of a third person such as a relative or friend, who is not essential to the transmission of information o......
-
Privilege
...client’s mental condition (as distin-guished from private communications), does not violate attorney-client privilege. State v. Shire , 850 S.W.2d 923. (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK: Section 4503 of the New York CPLR states: (a) Unless the client waives the privi......
-
Table of Cases
...State v. Schouest, 351 So.2d 462 (La. 1977), §§116.01, 21.419 State v. Scott , 285 Kan. 366, 171 P.3d 639 (2007), §5.407 State v. Shire, 850 S.W.2d 923. (Mo.App.S.D. 1993), §9.501.1 State v. Shoemaker, 432 S.E.2d 314, N.C. 1993, §7.400 State v. Silver , 286 N.C. 709, 213 S.E.2d 247 (1975), ......
-
Privilege
...client’s mental condition (as distinguished from private communications), does not violate attorney-client privilege. State v. Shire , 850 S.W.2d 923. (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). LAWYER - CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK: Section 4503 of the New York CPLR states: (a) Unless the client waives the priv......
-
Privilege
...client’s mental condition (as distinguished from private communications), does not violate attorney-client privilege. State v. Shire , 850 S.W.2d 923. (Mo. App. S.D. 1993). LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK: Section 4503 of the New York CPLR states: (a) Unless the client waives the privil......