State v. Tyler, No. 54830

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; SEILER, P.J., HOLMAN, J., and MEYERS; BARDGETT
Citation454 S.W.2d 564
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Melvin Leroy TYLER, Appellant
Decision Date11 May 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 54830

Page 564

454 S.W.2d 564
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Melvin Leroy TYLER, Appellant.
No. 54830.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
May 11, 1970.
Motions for Rehearing and to Transfer to Court En Banc
Denied June 8, 1970.

Page 565

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Ruger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Thomas E. Toney, III, St. Louis, for appellant.

HIGGINS, Commissioner.

Melvin Leroy Tyler, with four prior convictions of robbery, first degree, by

Page 566

means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, was further charged with feloniously, wilfully, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, making an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. A jury convicted him and the court assessed him punishment at 25 years' imprisonment. Sections 556.280 and 559.180, V.A.M.S.

On August 3, 1968, at about 6:00 p.m., Officers Harry Plaisted and Thomas Parks of the St. Louis Police Department, were driving southwest on Gravois near Arsenal in St. Louis, Missouri. They were looking for a black-over-red 1965 to 1968 model Chevrolet and, at this point, spotted a 1968 Chevrolet with black vinyl top and red body going northeast on Gravois. They noticed three men in the Chevrolet, two in front and one in the rear, all looking at the officers. The officers noted that the Chevrolet accelerated as it passed and they made a U-turn and gave chase. They were unable to catch the Chevrolet but noted it turning right off Gravois into Pestalozzi. When the officers made the same turn they saw the Chevrolet stopped as if about to make a turn to go south on California. As the officers approached, the front and rear seat passengers in the Chevrolet opened fire on the officers with pistols. The officers stopped their vehicle about forty to sixty feet to the rear of the Chevrolet and returned fire with their assailants. In the process the rear window of the Chevrolet received a bullet hole. After several seconds the Chevrolet again sped away and, due to delay in starting their vehicle, the officers lost sight of the Chevrolet. Both officers identified the man in the back seat as the defendant.

At about 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., the same date, Officers Jansen and Miller were answering a call. They turned off Sarah into an alley between Sarpy and Clayton. As they turned, they saw the 1968 Chevrolet with a man standing beside it. When the man saw the police car he got into the Chevrolet and attempted to drive away. As he did so, the officers noticed the bullet hole in the rear window of the Chevrolet. The driver lost control of the Chevrolet when Officer Jansen fired two shots and the Chevrolet hit a fence after which the driver rolled out, jumped a fence and made good his escape on foot. Both officers identified defendant as the driver of the Chevrolet at the time of this skirmish.

On August 5, 1968, Officers Powers and Peterson went to the Kansas City Police Department and brought defendant to St. Louis and, on August 6, 1968, he was identified in the Third District Station by Officers Parks and Plaisted as the man who shot at them from the rear of the Chevrolet. Likewise, Officer Miller identified him as the man who eluded him in the alley.

Defendant presented evidence which, if believed, would have established an alibi.

Sufficiency of evidence to sustain the judgment is not at issue and the statement demonstrates that the state made its case.

Citing many of the well-known authorities, both federal and state, on the subject, and principally Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; Rivers v. United States, 5 Cir., 400 F.2d 935; United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; United States v. Kinnard, D.C., D.C., 294 F.Supp. 286, Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 979, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267; United States v. Gilmore, 7 Cir., 398 F.2d 679; State v. Hamblin, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 603, appellant contends that the court erred in permitting Officers Parks, Plaisted, and Miller to testify to their identification on defendant on August 6, 1968, at the police station because: I. Defendant had no attorney present when the identification was made; II. The identification at the police station was conducted in a suggestive manner; III. He was not accorded a lineup. In this connection he also contends, I(B), that the officers' in-court identification of defendant should not have been admitted until after a determination by the court that

Page 567

such identification had a source independent of the identification at the police station.

The difficulty with appellant's position is that he has no record upon which to stand. The record shows that there were no pretrial motions going to these matters; it also shows and appellant admits that all of the officers' identification testimony went to the jury without objection; it shows in counsel's cross-examination of the officers that all the incidents and details of the officers' identification, including their opportunity to make their identification, were known to defendant's lawyer, and there were no motions to strike. Only at the close of the state's case was there any mention of these matters, and that came by way of a motion for directed verdict of acquittal which goes only to the sufficiency of the state's case. At no time was there any request that the court determine whether the officers' identification had a source independent of the proceedings at the police...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Jackson, No. 35622
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 11, 1975
    ...corroborated by Mrs. Pernell. This instruction has continually withstood challenges similar to those raised by defendant. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564, 568--569 (Mo.1970), and cases cited therein. Furthermore, this instruction does not differ significantly from MAI-CR 3.20. There is no er......
  • State v. Sykes, No. 41760
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 9, 1980
    ...objection lies to an identification based upon a photograph which does not identify the party pictured as a criminal. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.1970) (7, 8); State v. Lorenze, 592 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App.1979) (13, 14). It is also clear that a party may not take advantage of an error of......
  • State v. Anderson, Nos. 15489
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 5, 1990
    ...may not complain that his right to compulsory process has been denied when no request for process Page 303 has been made. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564, 568 (Mo.1970). With deference to counsel, the whole argument is simply a makeweight based on a dubious assumption. The point is wholly de......
  • State v. Patterson, No. 55641
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 12, 1971
    ...at trial questioned the evidence of the lineup, or moved the court to suppress the evidence of identifications (see State v. Tyler, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 564, 567), the evidence shows that the in-court identifications of appellant had an origin independent of the lineup. No violation of appellant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Jackson, No. 35622
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 11, 1975
    ...corroborated by Mrs. Pernell. This instruction has continually withstood challenges similar to those raised by defendant. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564, 568--569 (Mo.1970), and cases cited therein. Furthermore, this instruction does not differ significantly from MAI-CR 3.20. There is no er......
  • State v. Sykes, No. 41760
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 9, 1980
    ...objection lies to an identification based upon a photograph which does not identify the party pictured as a criminal. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.1970) (7, 8); State v. Lorenze, 592 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.App.1979) (13, 14). It is also clear that a party may not take advantage of an error of......
  • State v. Anderson, Nos. 15489
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 5, 1990
    ...may not complain that his right to compulsory process has been denied when no request for process Page 303 has been made. State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564, 568 (Mo.1970). With deference to counsel, the whole argument is simply a makeweight based on a dubious assumption. The point is wholly de......
  • State v. Patterson, No. 55641
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 12, 1971
    ...at trial questioned the evidence of the lineup, or moved the court to suppress the evidence of identifications (see State v. Tyler, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 564, 567), the evidence shows that the in-court identifications of appellant had an origin independent of the lineup. No violation of appellant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT