State v. Simmons, 51350
Decision Date | 12 May 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 51350,51350 |
Citation | 734 S.W.2d 513 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Edmond SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Caterina Ditraglia, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Donna Richards-Crosswhite, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Found guilty by a jury of the class C felony of stealing, § 570.040, RSMo 1986 defendant was sentenced by the trial court as a prior offender to seven years imprisonment. § 558.016, RSMo 1986. Defendant appeals; we affirm.
At approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 23, 1985, Laura Ann Stovall, a salesperson in the Famous-Barr store located on South Kingshighway in the City of St. Louis, saw defendant enter the store. She watched as defendant went to the men's department, a short distance from her work station, where he grabbed a number of belts from a display rack and ran from the store without paying for them. Approximately twenty minutes later, St. Louis Police Officer Leroy Nunnally, who was patrolling the area in a marked police car, saw a man in a parking lot holding a number of leather belts. At that point, Officer Nunnally did not know of the theft. When the man saw the police car, he started to run through an alley. Nunnally blocked the alley with his car and detained the man who had eleven leather belts, some with display hooks and Famous-Barr labels on them. Nunnally radioed for an "assist car", and he was directed to take the man to Famous-Barr where he met Sergeant Donald Ebner. Nunnally took the man into the store where he was immediately identified by Ms. Stovall as the person who had taken the belts from the store. At trial, Ms. Stovall positively identified defendant as the same person.
Defendant claims two points of error: (1) that he was the victim of an illegal search and seizure and, therefore, the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the stolen belts and Ms. Stovall's testimony concerning her identification of the defendant when Nunnally brought him back to the store; and, (2) that the trial court erred in granting the state's motion in limine thus preventing defendant from eliciting from Officer Nunnally the fact that, when Nunnally detained him, defendant said he had run from the officer because defendant did not have a peddler's license to sell the belts.
We discern no violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights in connection with his initial detention by Officer Nunnally. It is well established that a police officer is not required to have probable cause for arrest in order to make an investigatory stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); State v. Adell, 716 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo.App.1986). In the instant case, the police officer observed the defendant at approximately 9:25 p.m. standing on a restaurant parking lot holding eleven belts partially wrapped in a jacket. When the defendant saw the police car, he attempted to flee. Such facts allow for an investigatory stop. As was said in State v. Sims, 639 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Mo.App.1982), ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McKeehan
...parking lot." As soon as the two backup officers arrived, Appellant turned and ran before being chased and caught. In State v. Simmons, 734 S.W.2d 513 (Mo.App.E.D.1987), a man in a parking lot holding some belts started to run when he saw an officer who was on regular patrol and who did not......
-
State v. Spurgeon, 20036
...enforcement." State v. Sims, 639 S.W.2d 105, 107 (Mo.App.W.D.1982). See also State v. McKeehan, 894 S.W.2d at 220; State v. Simmons, 734 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Mo.App.E.D.1987). The circumstances leading to an authorized Terry stop do not have to exclude the possibility of innocent behavior. Stat......
-
State v. Jordan, 53950
...free to leave." Id. at 552. A police officer is not required to have probable cause to make an investigatory stop. State v. Simmons, 734 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). "The minimal standard of articulable justification required by the fourth amendment for an investigative stop is whet......
-
State v. Preston, s. 60486
...be drawn by a trained police officer and the evidence is to be viewed as seen by one versed in law enforcement. State v. Simmons, 734 S.W.2d 513, 514[1, 2] (Mo.App.1987) . Here, after appellant was initially stopped for a traffic violation, Officer Stransky detected an ether odor and an odo......
-
Section 23.74 Spontaneous Declarations and Excited Utterances
...1971). The statement or utterance must be a reaction to the event itself and not to the intervention of the police. State v. Simmons, 734 S.W.2d 513, 514 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). The essential test for the admissibility of such statements is spontaneity, Pflugradt, 463 S.W.2d 566, but each cas......