State v. Watts, 59209

Decision Date13 August 1991
Docket NumberNo. 59209,59209
Citation813 S.W.2d 940
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Willie WATTS, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Loyce Hamilton, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John P. Pollard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

PUDLOWSKI, Presiding Judge.

Defendant, Willie Watts, appeals his conviction of possession of cocaine, § 195.020, RSMo 1986 (repealed 1989, current version at § 195.202, RSMo Cum.Supp.1989). We affirm.

On June 24, 1989, Officer Brian Young was alone in a police van patrolling the Eighth District. At approximately 5:30 p.m., the dispatcher directed him to go to the 700 block of North Whittier. Officer Daniel Isom was also sent to the scene in a patrol car. As Officer Young approached the scene, he observed four men standing near a telephone booth in front of a laundromat at 713 North Whittier. Officer Young saw defendant place a clear plastic bag in the fencepost. Officer Isom arrived on the scene about the same time and also witnessed defendant shoving the bag in the fencepost. Defendant then resumed conversing with the other three men.

Officer Young checked the fencepost and found a clear plastic bag containing six rocklike substances believed to be cocaine. He seized the packet and placed it in his shirt pocket. Officer Young then arrested defendant. Meanwhile, Officer Isom detained the other three men, filled out an information sheet, and ran a wanted check on them. The immediate area was searched but nothing else was found. The officers placed defendant in police custody and released the other three men.

After taking the plastic bag to the police station, Officer Young placed it in an envelope marked with his initials. The envelope was conveyed to the police laboratory where the police criminalist labeled the specimen and identified it as cocaine. At trial, Officer Young identified state's Exhibit I as the same evidence that he removed from the fencepost and transported to the police laboratory. Exhibit I was received into evidence without objection.

Defense counsel sought to cross-examine Officer Young about potential bias in favor of the state. Defendant wanted to show that a charge pending against Officer Young for unlawful use of a weapon was nolle prosequied in return for favorable testimony. The trial court sustained the state's motion in limine regarding this testimony because there was no relation to the case at bar.

The jury returned a guilty verdict for possession of cocaine, § 195.020, RSMo 1986. The court sentenced defendant as a prior and persistent offender, §§ 558.016 and 557.036.4, RSMo Cum.Supp.1990, to seven years imprisonment. Defendant appeals that conviction claiming two points on appeal.

In his first point defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by disallowing the cross-examination of Officer Young on the unlawful use of a weapon charge that was nolle prosequied. Defendant contends this testimony should have been allowed to demonstrate the witness' bias or motivation to testify favorably for the state.

It is well established that an important purpose of the constitutionally protected right of cross examination is to provide litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the credibility of testimony through the impeachment process. State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1119, 106 S.Ct. 1980, 90 L.Ed.2d 663 (1986). Parties should be allowed an opportunity to display before a jury the bias, hostility, or prejudice held by a witness against that party. Id. However, this is not a right free from all restrictions. The authority of a criminal defendant to show the existence and extent of a witness's bias, prejudice, or hostility is subject to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. Discussing this discretion, the Supreme Court stated:

There are sound reasons for having a rule which gives a trial court the discretionary authority to limit the scope of cross-examination directed toward impeachment. As the helmsman of the trial process, a trial judge should be able to keep the process from becoming weighted down with the accumulation of cumulative evidence and free of undue harassment of witnesses. It should be within the power of the trial court to limit or exclude the use of impeachment evidence whose prejudicial effect far out-distances its value to the jury as an aid for determining credibility. As Professor McCormick has noted, a trial judge 'has the responsibility for seeing that the sideshow does not take over the circus.' McCormick On Evidence, § 41 (3rd ed. 1984).

Johnson, 700 S.W.2d at 818.

The credibility of a witness may not be attacked by evidence of an arrest or criminal charge not resulting in conviction. State v. Sanders, 360 S.W.2d 722, 725 (Mo.1962). In State v. Lockhart, 507 S.W.2d 395 (Mo.1974), the Supreme Court stated three exceptions to this rule: (1) where the inquiry shows a specific interest of the witness; (2) where it shows motivation to testify favorably for the state; and (3) where it shows the testimony was given in expectation of leniency. Id. at 396. In Lockhart, the defense sought to question a police officer witness concerning a pending second degree murder charge. The court found that error based on these three exceptions was not properly preserved in a motion for new trial. Further, no plain error was present because there was no showing the officer was motivated by interest or promise of leniency. That case does not go so far as to hold that it would be error to not permit confrontation regarding the officer's pending charge. At best, that inference could be considered dicta. More likely, the court did not intend this inference to mean, as defendant argues, that the trial court has no discretion to disallow questioning on bias issues.

Although defendant properly preserved this issue for review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing cross-examination of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Wise
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 June 1994
    ...that the witness testified with an expectation of leniency. State v. Lockhart, 507 S.W.2d 395, 396 (Mo.1974); State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 943 (Mo.App.1991). Here, appellant attempted to show that four "wanteds" 8 had been issued against Davis to show that Davis was biased towards the st......
  • State v. McClanahan
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 26 August 1997
    ...preserve allegations of error for appellate review, they must be included in the motion for new trial. Rule 29.11(d); State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 943 (Mo.App.1991). Finally, it is incumbent upon the defendant to identify in what manner the trial court erred as it relates to the two unan......
  • Scroggins v. State, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 June 1993
    ...rulings are generally affirmed; trial courts more often than not exclude impeachment evidence on collateral matters. See State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940 (Mo.App.1991) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to cross-examine a police officer regarding the ......
  • State v. Phillips
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 4 February 1997
    ...(1910); State v. Rose, 339 Mo. 317, 96 S.W.2d 498, 504 (1936); Holden, 174 S.W.2d at 793; Sanders, 360 S.W.2d at 725; State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 943 (Mo.App.1991)), situations when a witness' testimony is possibly driven by a desire to have the state not prosecute him or her by reason ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Section 20.83 Objections
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Family Law (2014 Supp) Chapter 20 Trial Practice
    • Invalid date
    ...litigants with a meaningful opportunity to challenge the credibility of testimony through the impeachment process.” State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991); see also State v. Johnson, 700 S.W.2d 815 (Mo. banc 1985); Russell, 625 S.W.2d 138. But it is appropriate for the tri......
  • Section 10.14 Support
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Evidence Deskbook Chapter 10 Credibility and Impeachment of Witnesses
    • Invalid date
    ...motivation to testify favorably for the state; and (3) where it shows the testimony was given in expectation of leniency. State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 943 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (citations...
  • Section 20.12 Chain of Custody Sufficient—Evidence of Drug Testing Admissible
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Evidence Deskbook Chapter 20 Scientific Evidence
    • Invalid date
    ...the fact that the time of sale was not written on the bag and the incorrect transaction number was written on the bag. · State v. Watts, 813 S.W.2d 940, 944 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991). The court held that there was no plain error in admitting a plastic bag containing cocaine rocks despite the cla......

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