State v. Williams, s. 55058

• Decision Date: 18 February 1992
• Docket Number: 60188,Nos. 55058,s. 55058
• Citation: 828 S.W.2d 894
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James WILLIAMS, Appellant. James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 894

828 S.W.2d 894

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James WILLIAMS, Appellant.

James WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 55058, 60188.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Three.

Feb. 18, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

March 24, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied June 2, 1992.

Cheryl Rafert, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal from convictions of murder in the first degree and attempted rape, and from the denial of Defendant's Rule 29.15 motion. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole on the murder count and one hundred years' imprisonment on the attempted rape count, to run consecutively to the life sentence. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdicts, the evidence adduced at trial was as follows. On July 27, 1986, Defendant rode to work with a co-worker and Victim, his supervisor at Malcolm Bliss Mental Hospital. Later, while on his morning break, Defendant drove with the same co-worker to East St. Louis, Illinois. There he purchased a twelve-pack of beer and one pint of gin. Defendant had borrowed five dollars from Victim to purchase the liquor.

At approximately 3:30 p.m., the workers supervised by Victim went down to her basement office to sign the time sheet. When the workers got to Victim's office, they found the door locked so they called hospital security. When the security personnel opened the door to Victim's office they found her body on the floor. She had numerous bruises about the arms and neck. Her shirt was pushed up around her neck, and her bra had been pushed up to reveal her breasts. Her underwear and hose were pulled down around her ankles.

An autopsy of Victim's body revealed that her death was the result of manual strangulation. Her body had sustained numerous bruises which were particularly noticeable in the neck area. In addition, Victim had sustained multiple tears in her vaginal lining which the medical examiner found to be consistent with forced penile penetration.

Several employees, including Defendant, were questioned about their knowledge of Victim's murder. Defendant initially claimed he knew nothing about the murder, but shortly thereafter he confessed to the police. In his confession, Defendant stated that he and Victim had argued about the change from the five dollars he borrowed to purchase liquor. He stated that as he began to leave her office, she jumped on his back; he hit her a few times and knocked her down to get her to be quiet. When she allegedly continued to scream and fight with Defendant, he began choking her. He said he stopped choking her at one point, but she screamed and spit at him, so he began to choke her again and eventually strangled her.

Defendant consented to the police's request to search his home. There, the officers found the clothing Defendant had worn to work that day. The clothing had bloodstains that were determined to be Victim's blood.

Although Defendant did not testify, he presented numerous witnesses on his behalf. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder and attempted rape. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On May 2, 1989, Defendant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion. On August 1, 1989, Defendant's counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion. On April 12, 1991, the motion court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and denied Defendant's motion without an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant initially contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to prohibit death qualification of the jury. Defendant contends a death-qualified jury panel violated his right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community in that it created a jury more conviction-prone than one not subject to such questioning. This issue has been raised and rejected numerous times by both the United States Supreme Court and the Missouri Supreme Court. See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 173, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1764, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729, 735-736 (Mo. banc 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1098, 106 S.Ct. 1500, 89 L.Ed.2d 901 (1986). Further, this claim has specifically been rejected where the death penalty was not imposed, as in this case. State v. Merritt, 734 S.W.2d 926, 932 (Mo.App.1987).

Defendant next asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the jury panel on the grounds that the prosecutor had used his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The prosecutor exercised five of his nine peremptory challenges to exclude black venirepersons from the jury. The petit jury panel consisted of one black and eleven whites, with one black and one white alternate.

When Defendant objected to the prosecutor's strikes removing these venirepersons, the trial court stated it did not believe that Defendant had made a prima facie case of racial discrimination. However, the prosecutor requested a hearing to present his reasons for striking the black venirepersons. Defendant contends the prosecutor did not present racially neutral reasons for striking the prospective jurors.

A reviewing court may not reverse a trial court's decision as to whether the prosecution discriminated in the exercise of its peremptory challenges unless it finds that the decision was clearly erroneous. State v. Griffin, 756 S.W.2d 475, 482 [3, 4] (Mo. banc 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1113-14, 109 S.Ct. 3175, 104 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1988). The prosecutor's explanation as to why he struck the individuals Defendant complains of was satisfactory. He stated he struck Venireperson Johnson because she claimed to have a hardship with her children one day but not the next, because she demonstrated little concern about a neighbor's rape, because she refused to make eye contact with the prosecutor and grimaced, and because she was Defendant's age and in the housekeeping profession, as was Defendant. He stated he struck Venireperson Barefield because his age was approximately that of Defendant, because he avoided eye contact, and because he was strong-willed and the prosecutor thought he could control the jury. The prosecutor indicated he struck Venireperson Schucks because he felt she would consider Defendant's intoxication as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase. He stated he struck Venireperson Fields because she became angry when requested to stand, and because she could not remember the charge involved in a case in which she was a juror but was "proud" that the verdict was "not guilty." He stated he struck Venireperson Brady because she was antagonistic towards him, and because she left a good-paying job for one with much lower pay. He stated he struck Venireperson Jones as an alternate juror because she seemed angry at the police for questioning her about the murder of her neighbor, and because her sister was in prison.

The trial court found that these peremptory strikes were not racially motivated. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. banc 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 108 S.Ct. 1755, 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988). This finding is substantiated by the record. The prosecutor's explanation for peremptory strikes is not required to rise to the level justifying the exercise of a challenge for cause. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. The prosecutor may exercise his peremptory challenges on the basis of his legitimate "hunches" and past experience so long as racial discrimination is not the motive. State v. Kilgore, 771 S.W.2d 57, 63 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874, 110 S.Ct. 211, 107 L.Ed.2d 164 (1989). The trial court's ruling was not clearly erroneous. Point denied.

In his third point on appeal, Defendant contends the trial court erred in sustaining the State's motion for sanctions because of Defendant's failure to provide the court with any notes concerning interviews with either prosecution or defense witnesses. These notes were to have been reviewed by the court to determine whether or not they constituted work product or were otherwise discoverable. Defendant cites no authority to support his position. However, in our discretion, we review Defendant's claim for plain error. State v. Fraction, 782 S.W.2d 764, 768 (Mo.App.1989). The sustentation of the motion for sanctions was plain error only if a manifest injustice resulted therefrom.

No such manifest injustice occurred here. Defendant argues that he was forced to delete the endorsement of a potential defense witness for fear that disclosure could harm Defendant. However, nothing on the record indicates that Defendant was ever required to produce these notes for the State. The court never imposed sanctions on Defendant. Further, when at trial the State demanded Defendant's notes from the interviews of a defense witness, the court stated it was sure that Defendant had complied with the law. The court then denied the State's request to force Defendant to disclose those particular notes to the court. We find that Defendant was not prejudiced in any way, and that therefore no plain error occurred.

Defendant next asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the State's objection to Defendant's questioning of an expert witness regarding Defendant's possible mental impairment due to alcohol abuse. Defendant contends that if this testimony had been permitted, the outcome of the trial could have been different. Defendant's claim has no merit.

The expert witness whose testimony is at issue here was allowed to testify over the State's objection that alcohol abuse could cause brain damage. The expert continued his testimony in response to Defendant's redirect examination Q: If you find that there is brain damage or...