State v. Watts
| Decision Date | 15 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 43660,43660 |
| Citation | 296 Minn. 354,208 N.W.2d 748 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Claude Marvin WATTS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where under the testimony of several eyewitnesses the jury could reasonably find that defendant forcibly and without consent led his victim some 224 feet to an alley, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of kidnapping under Minn.St. 609.25, subd. 1.
2. The fact that some time before trial three of the five witnesses who identified defendant were shown a photograph of defendant unaccompanied by other photographs does not constitute reversible error where each witness had had ample opportunity to observe defendant at the scene of the crime.
3. Subsequent to Miranda warnings, defendant initially refused to talk to the police but later made statements. Admission of testimony concerning the Miranda warnings and defendant's initial refusal to talk does not constitute reversible error where the testimony served as a foundation for the admission of defendant's later statements and where no objection was made. However, the better practice would have been to elicit testimony of the Miranda warnings without the subsequent testimony that defendant had initially refused to talk with police.
C. Paul Jones, Public Defender, Ronald L. Haskvitz, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Theodore R. Rix, Vernon E. Bergstrom and Michael H. McGlennen, Asst. County Attys., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and PETERSON, TODD and MacLAUGHLIN, JJ.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of kidnapping. Minn.St. 609.25, subd. 1(2, 3). Defendant was tried by a jury and testified on his own behalf. We affirm.
The victim, Philip William Chase, age 56, testified that on Saturday afternoon, July 17, 1971, he was waiting for a bus at the corner of Fourth Avenue and Lake Street in Minneapolis. Chase was carrying a bag of groceries at the time. He testified at trial that he glanced out of the corner of his eye and saw defendant coming up Fourth Avenue toward Lake Street and pass back of him. As defendant passed, he hit Chase, causing him to fall to the sidewalk.
Chase went into a nearby paint store, and defendant followed. Defendant hit him again, and the next thing Chase remembered was awaking in an alley just as defendant was throwing a barrel at him.
Walter Scott, an employee in the paint store, saw Chase and a man he identified as defendant fighting in the store. Scott called the police. Robert Kresal, also an employee in the paint store, saw a man he identified as defendant hit, kick, and knee Chase, and then drag and push Chase, who was 'foggy' and 'dead weight,' out the door by holding him by the back of the neck or shirt. Mary Fey, a customer in the paint store, saw a man she identified as defendant hit and kick Chase several times and take him out of the store 'definitely * * * against his will.'
Wesley Kight, 17 years of age, while riding in a car on Lake Street, saw a man he identified as defendant taking Chase down the street with his hand on the back of Chase's neck. The car's driver, Patrick Scott, turned the car around, stopped, and called the police. The two boys, after seeing several people peering into an alley, drove around to the back of the alley. In the alley, Patrick Scott saw a man he identified as defendant striking Chase. The police arrived and, after pursuing defendant, arrested him. Two of the several officers who had assisted in arresting defendant testified as to the details of the arrest. The distance from the paint store to the alley where victim Chase was found is 224 feet. Defendant, after proper Miranda warnings, denied he attacked Chase.
At trial defendant denied ever having seen Chase prior to the preliminary hearing and testified that the police arrested him while he was being robbed outside the Malibu Bar, which is next door to the paint store. His testimony squarely contradicted the state's witnesses as to the details of his arrest. Two other defense witnesses testified that defendant was drinking with them in the Malibu Bar, but their testimony concerning when defendant left the bar was uncertain.
It is claimed by defendant on appeal that (a) the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of kidnapping, (b) defendant was denied due process and a fair trial because certain identification witnesses saw a photograph of defendant unaccompanied by photographs of any other individuals, and (c) defendant was denied Fifth-Amendment rights when a police officer testified that defendant was given Miranda warnings and refused to talk after they were given.
1. In determining the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, our scope of review is limited to ascertaining whether, under the evidence contained in the record, the jury could reasonably find the accused guilty of the offense charged. State v. Combs, 292 Minn. 317, 195 N.W.2d 176 (1972).
We have carefully reviewed the evidence and are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's conviction for kidnapping. Defendant correctly contends that Chase's identification of him as his kidnapper and his recollection of events of that day were confused and inconsistent. Chase testified at the preliminary hearing that he could not honestly say that he remembered his assailant's face. Later, however, at trial, he identified defendant. When he was asked by defense counsel why he was then able to do so, he replied, 'I seen him at the pretrial.' One of the police officers testified that Chase had told him at the scene that he had run down Lake Street and into the alley. At trial, Chase testified that he did not recall how he had gotten into the alley.
In contrast to Chase's inconsistent testimony, the testimony of five eyewitnesses was clear. Mary Fey, Robert Kresal, and Walter Scott saw defendant in the paint store; Wesley Kight saw defendant take Chase down Lake Street; and Patrick Scott saw defendant hitting Chase in the alley. Each of the five identified defendant. We hold that this is ample evidence of defendant's identification to support the jury's verdict.
Likewise, the evidence was sufficient to support the charge of kidnapping. Robert Kresal and Mary Fey testified that defendant forced Chase out of the paint store against his will. Wesley Kight testified he saw defendant taking Chase down the street with his hand on the back of Chase's neck. Patrick Scott testified he saw defendant beating Chase in the alley. We hold there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant forcibly led Chase to the alley some 224 feet from the paint store.
The confusion and uncertainty of victim Chase as to the events of that day are more than understandable. He was attacked without warning in broad daylight on a heavily traveled public street in Minneapolis. The attack was followed by an episode of violence and terror during and after which the most composed person could become disoriented and confused. At least two witnesses confirmed that Chase was very disturbed and upset after the incident. The evidence of the five eyewitnesses more than overcomes the confusion in Chase's testimony and is sufficient to support the verdict.
Further, there is no doubt that the facts legally support the kidnapping conviction. Minn.St. 609.25, subd. 1, provides in part as follows:
'Whoever, for any of the following purposes, confines or removes from one place to another, any person without his consent * * * is guilty of kidnapping and may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2:
(2) To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter; or
(3) To commit great bodily harm or to terrorize the victim or another * * *.'
In State v. Morris, 281 Minn. 119, 160 N.W.2d 715 (1968), we held that it is not necessary under § 609.25, subd. 1, to prove that the defendant confined his victim for a 'substantial' period of time or removed him a 'substantial' distance in order to establish the crime of kidnapping. The facts of this case, therefore, are sufficient to justify the kidnapping conviction.
2. Three of the five witnesses who identified defendant were shown, either deliberately or inadvertently, a photograph of defendant. This occurred while the witnesses were being interviewed by the police. Each time, the photograph was unaccompanied by photographs of other individuals....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hafner
...Cir.); United States v. Allen, 497 F.2d 160, 163 (5th Cir.); Constantine v. People, 178 Colo. 16, 24, 495 P.2d 208; State v. Watts, 296 Minn. 354, 359, 208 N.W.2d 748; State v. Bono, 128 N.J.Super. 254, 319 A.2d 762; Atkinson v. State, 511 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tex.Cr.App). Accordingly, the cour......
-
State v. Cefalo
...(BNA) 2114 (1978); State v. Bash, Iowa, 214 N.W.2d 219, 220 (1974); Green v. State, supra, 371 A.2d at 1120; State v. Watts, 296 Minn. 354, 208 N.W.2d 748, 751 (1973); State v. Sahlie, supra, 245 N.W.2d at 479. Many of the foregoing cases, in imposing upon the prosecution the burden of proo......
-
State v. Walker
...was admitted to provide a foundation for the admission of statements made subsequent to the warning. So, also, in State v. Watts, 296 Minn. 354, 208 N.W.2d 748 (1973), where the testimony related to defendant's initial refusal to In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2......
-
State v. Sahlie
...Minn. 314, 219 N.W.2d 617; State v. Bash, 1974, Iowa, 214 N.W.2d 219; State v. Salazar, 1973, Iowa, 213 N.W.2d 490; State v. Watts, 1973, 296 Minn. 354, 208 N.W.2d 748. Assuming the defendant has met his burden by showing that the identification procedures were impermissively suggestive, th......