State v. Webster
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 539 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steve WEBSTER, Appellant. 28249. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Shubert, Hight & Ballew, Harrisonville, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Sheila K. Hyatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DIXON, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
By the verdict of a jury appellant was convicted of the commission of the crime of sale of a Schedule II controlled substance, amphetamine (500 'hits' of 'speed'). The court sentenced appellant to 20 years imprisonment in the Department of Corrections in accordance with the jury's assessment of punishment.
The sufficiency of the evidence to establish the sale of the speed is not challenged. It will suffice to say that appellant, by prearrangement, sold the 500 hits to State Highway Patrol undercover narcotics agent, Mack Nations, on November 11, 1974, receiving $125.00 for them.
Appellant's first point is that the court erred in failing to sustain a challenge for cause of venireman Whited because of his extensive close personal and professional relationship with the prosecutor (as argued but not adequately set out in Point I as to why the court erred). There was in the record a direct statement of Mr. Whited in regard to his close relationship with the prosecutor, and the matter further came up in this manner: Appellant seizes upon the italicized words under the claim that the answer is equivocal and the court should have sustained his challenge for cause. On this cold record there is no way for this court to determine if the answer meant that Whited had doubt that he could render a fair and impartial verdict because of his personal relationship with the prosecutor, or whether it was his personal manner of speaking and indicated a positive belief that he could render a fair verdict. Whited's voice inflection, his facial expression and movements were before the trial court and were, in the exercise of discretion, for it to determine as to Whited's qualifications as a juror. State v. Wilson, 436 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.1969); State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.1972); and see State v. Grant, 394 S.W.2d 285 (Mo.1965). Besides, Whited did not serve on the jury and the record does not show that appellant was forced to expend one of his peremptory challenges to remove him from the panel, and therefore a finding of prejudice is precluded. State v. Daugherty, 484 S.W.2d 236 (Mo.1972); State v. Brauch, 529 S.W.2d 926 (Mo.App.1975), and cases cited. Point I is overruled.
Appellant's Point II contention is that there was a break in the evidence as to a chain of custody of the plastic bags containing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. State
...or whether it was his personal manner of speaking and indicated a positive belief that he could render a fair verdict." State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo.App.1976). Here, the trial judge was in the best position to observe Number 31's demeanor and tone when she answered defense counse......
-
State v. Ealy
...on some other ground or may have been removed from the panel by peremptory challenge by the state. Cited in support are State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Tippett, 317 Mo. 319, 296 S.W. 132 (1927); State v. Brauch, 529 S.W.2d 926 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Battles, 357 Mo.......
-
State v. Pernell
...circumstances, the Supreme Court has reached the same result. State v. McCrary, 478 S.W.2d 349 (Mo.1972). Accord: State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.App.1976). Defendant also complains that the state failed to establish by sufficient foundation that the tests used to identify the capsules ......
-
State v. Douglas
...time in the past by the prosecutor since there was no evidence showing that they could not be fair and impartial); State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15, 16-17 (Mo.App.1976) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to strike for cause a venireperson who had an extensive professional r......
-
Section 20.12 Chain of Custody Sufficient—Evidence of Drug Testing Admissible
...on marijuana even though the State did not produce the person who “signed in” the subject marijuana to the crime lab. · State v. Webster, 539 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo. App. W.D. 1976). Proof of chain of custody of several bags of narcotics was adequate when delivered via multiple recipients, even ......