State v. Sims, 57575

• Decision Date: 12 November 1973
• Docket Number: No. 57575,No. 1,57575,1
• Citation: 501 S.W.2d 161
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. June Charles SIMS, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 161

501 S.W.2d 161

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. June Charles SIMS, Appellant.

No. 57575.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Nov. 12, 1973.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Douglas N. Merritt, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant; Paul T. Miller, Executive Director, Willard B. Bunch, Chief Defender, Kansas City, of counsel.

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

June Charles Sims, charged with arson of a dwelling house, was convicted by a jury which assessed his punishment at forty years' imprisonment. Sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. § 560.010, RSMo 1969. (Appeal taken prior to January 1, 1972.)

Appellant's statement of the case demonstrates a submissible case of arson of a dwelling house:

'* * * Appellant had serious marital trouble with his wife shortly before she had abandoned him after only three days of the marriage. * * * she was fearful of him and was trying to avoid him. * * * Because of the family altercations she abided with Mrs. Jefferson and her mother for the weeks prior to the fire.

'Shortly before the fire * * * Mrs. Jefferson and Mrs. Sims returned home from grocery shopping at about 8:15 p.m. * * * January 23, 1971. About a block or two from the home, Mrs. Sims * * * saw her husband's car, a 1970 'Charger' which she recognized. At that time she wrote the license number on an envelope. When the automobile crossed at an intersection in front of the Jefferson car, Mrs. Sims recognized the Appellant as the driver and saw three other unknown men in the vehicle.

'The ladies continued to the residence and removed the groceries into the house. Mrs. Sims remained in the back part of the house dishing up ice cream for Mrs. Mary Hobbs, the third resident of the house and Mrs. Jefferson had returned toward the automobile at the front curb. As she opened the front door she saw a tall Negro which she couldn't identify, throw something through the front window. The thing burst into flames and Mrs. Jefferson ran from the house.

'* * * Roderick Henderson, a nineteen (19) year old man testified that he was the man Mrs. Jefferson had seen, that he did in fact light and throw the bottle of gasoline through the window of the home. Also, John Thomas, age seventeen (17), admitted actual participation of (in) the crime.

'Both of the bombers testified that the Appellant had shown them how to prepare such bottles of gasoline and stated that they both were instigated to the act by the Appellant and went to the scene with the Appellant in his car. Furthermore, they testified that the Appellant drove them from the scene and they learned via police band radio received while still in the Appellant's car that the Appellant was suspected of the crime. * * *

'The Appellant testified that he met the principals in the crime, Roderick Henderson and John Thomas in company with several other young men who had formed a vigilante group. He said that he had been approached and asked to participate but that he had refused.

'The State's witnesses, Roderick Henderson and John Thomas, both stated that they met the Appellant for the first time on the day before the fire. The Appellant remembers both men from some time two years previously when he worked as a guard at Paseo High School. At that time both Henderson and Thomas showed great enmity toward the Appellant.

'* * * Appellant testified that he was at a house at 1715 Montgall, the residence of Mrs. Evelyn Crosby. He left there about 8:00 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. * * * and went then to his brother's house. Enroute he encountered Michael Thomas (no relation to the witness, John Thomas) on Prospect Avenue. He loaned Michael Thomas fifty cents and continued to his brother's house arriving there about 8:45 p.m.'

Appellant's some contention is that he was 'denied due process of law and a fair trial because of non-disclosure by the prosecution of...