State v. Sinner
| Decision Date | 25 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 54786,54786 |
| Citation | 772 S.W.2d 719 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Denise Marie SINNER, Defendant/Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Darrill S. Beebe, St. Charles, for defendant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from her conviction by a jury of stealing over $150, a Class C felony, and of making a false declaration, a Class B misdemeanor. She received, based upon the jury recommendation, a sentence of one year imprisonment and a $500 fine on the felony charge and a sentence of six months and a $5000 fine on the misdemeanor. We affirm the felony conviction and reverse the misdemeanor.
Defendant was employed by a large St. Louis law firm essentially as a bookkeeper. In that position she was responsible for writing checks on the firm's general operating account. Payroll checks were prepared by an outside service. She had the authority and did sign the firm's checks including payroll. During the approximately seven months of her employment with the firm she wrote to herself or endorsed and cashed firm checks totalling in excess of $140,000 over and above her salary. She expended the money for certain bills she had and purchased in addition various luxury items including jewelry, a BMW automobile, a mink coat, a $10,000 piano, and a vacation trip for two to Hawaii. Defendant did not deny writing or cashing the checks but contended she did so with the knowledge and consent of the firm's senior partner with whom she was allegedly having a sexual relationship. The senior partner denied such relationship or of having knowledge or giving consent to defendant writing the checks to herself.
After the commencement of the prosecution, a deposition of the firm's office manager was taken by defendant. During his testimony he stated that defendant was fired for incompetence which included absenteeism of nine days. Defendant's counsel inquired if the witness was aware that defendant's children had been ill at times and that defendant suffered from cancer. The witness was not aware of either situation. Subsequently, the prosecution requested that defendant supply additional information concerning the cancer claim. Thereafter defendant submitted what purported to be a report from a doctor at Barnes Hospital that she had terminal renal cancer, was undergoing chemotherapy, and had a mortality prognosis of twelve to eighteen months. The doctor denied having ever treated defendant and denied having prepared the report. This report was the basis of the false declaration count.
On appeal defendant raises four points, one dealing with the stealing count and three dealing with the false declaration count. We need deal with only two of the points raised.
On the stealing count she contends that the trial court erred in denying her Rule 25.04 discovery motion for a physical examination of the senior partner. In her motion she asserted that the senior partner had "... a mole, birthmark or other type of skin imperfection on the right leg above the knee ..." which she had observed while in bed with him. In deposition he had denied the presence of such a blemish. The motion requested a physical examination to determine whether in fact such a blemish existed.
No general right to discovery exists for criminal cases in Missouri. Absent some statutory provision or rule of court, discovery is not permitted. State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885 (Mo.App.1986) . Rule 25.04 provides that the defendant may by written motion request "the state to disclose material and information not covered by Rule 25.03." If the request is found to be reasonable the court "shall order the state to disclose to the defendant that material and information requested which is found by the court to be relevant and material to the defendant's case." (Emphasis supplied). Rule 25.04 does not provide for disclosure by persons other than the state. It contains no provision for requiring physical or other examinations of victims or third parties such as the senior partner here. The record does not reflect that the state had any information on the dermatological condition of the senior partner's leg above the knee of which it could make discovery. In State v. Clark, supra, we found no authority for ordering a psychiatric examination of a prosecution witness. We similarly find no authority for the discovery sought here, and defendant has cited us to none. We find the point without merit.
Defendant's next point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald v. Delo
...of cause and prejudice because Missouri law does not provide for a psychiatric examination of a witness. See, e.g., State v. Sinner, 772 S.W.2d 719, 720-21 (Mo.App. 1989) (physical exam); State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Mo.App.1986) (mental exam). Finally, the record does not support a......
-
State v. Robinson
...trial judges lack authority to order such examinations. State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Mo.App.1986); see also State v. Sinner, 772 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Mo.App.1989); State v. Wallace, 745 S.W.2d 233, 235 (Mo.App.1987); State v. Moesch, 738 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Mo.App.1987). The western distri......
-
State v. Garner, 16604
...for criminal cases in Missouri, and absent some statutory provision or rule of court, discovery is not permitted. State v. Sinner, 772 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Mo.App.1989); State v. Clark, 711 S.W.2d 885 (Mo.App.1986). However, defendant asserts he should have been granted access to Officer Mills'......
-
State v. Meadows, s. 54220
...witnesses. Because no authority exists for ordering such an examination, any such motion would have been meritless. See State v. Sinner, 772 S.W.2d 719, 721 (Mo.App.1989). Finally, Movant contends trial counsel was ineffective for representing himself as the prosecutor to a witness. The mot......