State v. Thrift
Decision Date | 05 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 10887,10887 |
Citation | 588 S.W.2d 525 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Larry Deroy THRIFT, a/k/a Lawrence Deroy Thrift, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
C. R. Rhoades, Neosho, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Brenda Farr Engel, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
A jury found defendant, a second offender, guilty of burglary in the first degree, § 560.040 RSMo 1969, and the trial court sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
On September 16, 1976, "around 12 o'clock noon," Ethel Walker was lying down in her bedroom in her rural home in Newton County. She heard a knock at her door. Mrs. Walker testified,
Mrs. Walker further testified that the man, whom she identified as the defendant, knocked on the door of her neighbor's house and she "went back to the bathroom in the back of the house." She then heard a "commotion" at her back door, like someone "trying to open the door." The defendant then left the back door and "went back around to the front door." The front door consisted of the "big door" and the storm door, the latter being immediately exterior of the former. The storm door was "closed and locked." There was a noise at the front door and the defendant entered the house through the storm door and the "big door." Prior to the entry by defendant the "big door" was "unlocked and turned back."
Mrs. Walker testified that the defendant, with a gun in his hand, approached her and said, "I want money." Mrs. Walker told him she had no money and persuaded him to leave. He did so without further incident.
Ethel Walker was the only witness for the state who had personal knowledge that it was the defendant who entered her home. The state introduced photographs of the front door which were taken by detective Bob L. Roberts of the Joplin Police Department. According to Roberts the photographs showed marks which he characterized as "tool marks."
On this appeal defendant makes the valid contention that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sustain defendant's challenge for cause directed to veniremen Clyde Sparks and Melvin Southern.
During voir dire examination prosecuting attorney Steve Lampo informed the prospective jurors that the case involved a burglary which occurred in September 1976, and that the victim was Ethel Walker, whose house was "just off Highway 43 about eight miles north of Seneca." The prosecutor then asked if any of the prospective jurors was acquainted with Mrs. Walker. Sparks and Southern answered affirmatively. Each of the two veniremen also stated that he was acquainted with detective Bob Roberts of the Joplin Police Department who was to be one of the witnesses for the state.
The prosecutor then asked Mr. Sparks whether or not Sparks, if selected as a juror, "could listen to the evidence and go ahead and decide fairly and impartially, despite what you have heard about (the case)." Sparks answered, "yes." Sparks stated that Mrs. Walker lived not too far from him and that he had met detective Roberts several times through the Joplin R-8 School District.
After Southern had informed the prosecutor that he was acquainted with Ethel Walker, the prosecutor asked this question: "By reason of this acquaintance, you know about this particular case?" Southern answered, "yes, sir."
During the portion of the voir dire examination conducted by defendant's attorney, Walter Walker, the following transpired: (Emphasis added.)
VENIREMEN SPARKS and SOUTHERN: Yes.
VENIREMEN SPARKS and SOUTHERN: No.
Later in the voir dire examination by Mr. Walker defendant challenged for cause another venireman, Mr. Schmidt, and renewed his challenges directed to Sparks and Southern. Counsel stated to the court that Sparks and Southern "would believe what the complaining witness said, as they know her, and put more reliance on her testimony than other witnesses." The trial court sustained the challenge to venireman Schmidt and denied the renewed challenges. Thereafter defendant used two of his peremptory challenges to strike veniremen Sparks and Southern.
A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors before he is required to make his peremptory challenges. 1 The trial court has wide discretion in determining the qualifications of a venireman and its ruling on a challenge for cause will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. 2
State v. Harris, 425 S.W.2d 148, 155(8) (Mo.1968). 3
This is an area where there is no "clear line of demarcation," 4 and an abuse of discretion is not demonstrated merely because an appellate judge, had he been sitting as the trial judge, would have ruled otherwise on the challenge for cause. 5 Of course the facts of the particular case control, 6 and any doubt as to the propriety of the trial court's ruling is to be resolved in favor of that ruling. 7
A defendant who seeks review of a trial court's denial of his challenge for cause need not, as a predicate to review, show that he used his peremptory challenge to dispose of the venireman or that his peremptory challenges were already exhausted. 8
A venireman is not a judge of his own fitness, 9 and if his answers on voir dire show it is doubtful whether he could accord the defendant a fair trial, the trial court should sustain the challenge for cause. 10
Clearly the most important witness for the state was Ethel Walker. She alone identified the defendant as being the man who entered her home. Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, relied...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Salazar
...who testified on behalf of the victim company and the juror had known the “essential witness” all his life), and State v. Thrift, 588 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Mo.App.S.D.1979) (two panel members knew the key witness and said they “would tend to believe someone” they knew). The other cases cited by ......
-
State v. Torregrossa, 45890
...supra; State v. Wraggs, supra; State v. Owens, 620 S.W.2d 448, 449-450[1-3], [4-5], (Mo.App.1981). Appellant relies upon State v. Thrift, 588 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.App.1979). There one venireman consistently stated a bias in favor of the prosecuting witness whom he knew. A second responded similar......
-
State v. Salazar
...who testified on behalf of the victim company and the juror had known the "essential witness" all his life), and State v. Thrift, 588 S.W.2d 525, 527 (Mo. App. S.D. 1979) (two panel members knew the key witness and said they "would tend to believe someone" they knew). The other cases cited ......
-
State v. Ealy
...for cause. State v. Dickerson, 588 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Spidle, 413 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Mo.1967); State v. Thrift, 588 S.W.2d 525, 528 (Mo.App.1979). Concomitantly, the failure of the trial court to excuse for cause a legitimately challenged venireman is reversible error. St......