State v. Tomlin, 55795
| Decision Date | 14 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 55795,No. 1,55795,1 |
| Citation | 467 S.W.2d 918 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Spencer Lee TOMLIN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Ellis S. Outlaw, John J. Spencer, St. Louis, for petitioner.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Spencer Lee Tomlin, found by a jury to be guilty of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis under the Second Offender Act, has appealed, claiming that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti; failed to prove the material allegations of the indictment; failed to establish the identity of defendant as the robber, and failed to instruct on defendant's theory of the case (alibi).
The charge was armed robbery of one Rosie Lee Johnson, wife of E. S. Johnson, doing business as Johnson's Community Food Service, Inc. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and a customer named Dudley all testified that a person walked in the store, announced 'This is a stick up,' held two pistols in the face of Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Dudley, threatened to blow Mrs. Johnson's brains out, and said he wanted all of the money in the cash register; that she complied with his demand and handed over bills which Mrs. Johnson estimated at about $100 and which Mr. Johnson judged amounted to $150. Mrs. Johnson testified that she was afraid. Police, to whom the robbery was reported, showed the Johnsons and Mr. Dudley several photographs, one of which was a picture of defendant. All three picked out defendant's picture as that of the robber. All three viewed several men in a lineup, and each of them selected defendant as the robber. All three further made in-court identifications of defendant.
The foregoing constituted proof of the corpus delicti, and that defendant was the perpetrator of the crime. Defendant and several other witnesses testified to facts which if believed would have established an alibi. The claim that the court failed to instruct on the defense of alibi is obviously a mistake, because the record shows that Instruction No. 3 was given, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mayes, 45051
...that a robbery had been committed and identification of appellant from an array of photographs as the robber, State v. Tomlin, 467 S.W.2d 918, 919[3-5] (Mo.1971)--nevertheless they made no effort to obtain a warrant for his arrest over a period of seventeen days and entered his home without......
-
State v. Neal, 57861
...S.W.2d 262 (Mo.1968). See also State v. Taylor, 472 S.W.2d 395 (Mo.1971); State v. Smith, 358 Mo. 1, 212 S.W.2d 787 (1948); State v. Tomlin, 467 S.W.2d 918 (Mo.1971); and compare State v. Murphy, 415 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1967), where it was error to refuse an instruction on identification o......
-
State v. Hicks, 58307
...depends upon whether the officers at that moment had reasonable grounds to believe that appellant had committed the murder. State v. Tomlin, 467 S.W.2d 918 (Mo.1971); State v. Gant, 490 S.W.2d 46, 48(4) (Mo.1973); State v. Henderson, 510 S.W.2d 813, 818(2) (Mo.App.1974). There is no questio......
-
State v. Robinson
...of clothing). Sufficient identification by the victim may include photographs of the suspect exhibited to the victim, State v. Tomlin, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 918; a picture said to 'resemble' defendant, exhibited to the victim, State v. Parker, Mo.Sup. 458 S.W.2d 241, or, as in this case, a ph......