State v. Williams, s. 64013

Citation904 S.W.2d 103
Decision Date22 August 1995
Docket Number66617,Nos. 64013,s. 64013
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas WILLIAMS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Talat M. Bashir, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PUDLOWSKI, Judge.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for stealing, pursuant to § 570.030 RSMo 1944, obtained in Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and for which defendant was sentenced to fifteen years. The sentence was later vacated and defendant was resentenced to seven years. This is a consolidated appeal of defendant's denied 29.15 motion and the direct appeal from the trial court.

Mr. Daniel Roach (victim) testified that on August 11, 1991 he saw the defendant rummage through his truck and then drive away in a light blue Chevrolet Impala, license number WTA244 (Impala). Victim claims that he did not see defendant remove the weed-eater from his truck but that he did see him take it from the roof of the Impala and place it in the car before he drove away. The victim was able to obtain the license number of the Impala as it left the scene. The victim then called 911 and relayed the incident to the police. The license number reported by the victim was WTA244 and registered to defendant's sister. Defendant was arrested and taken into custody. The victim made a positive identification of defendant. At trial, Detective Calloway testified regarding a separate, previous occurrence with defendant in which pictures were taken of an Impala that the defendant operated on October 26, 1990. The defendant objected to this testimony and the trial court overruled, admitting the testimony. The admissibility of the testimony is one of two issues on appeal. The trial judge submitted a jury instruction defining "reasonable doubt" in compliance with 302.04 of the MAI-CR3d. The defendant raises the constitutionality of this instruction in his second point on this appeal. The jury found the defendant guilty. The motion court denied his motion for a new trial as well as his 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

The State contends that the issue of the admissibility of the witness' testimony was not properly preserved for appeal. The state claims that, at trial, the defense counsel did not specifically object to the testimony but only to the admission of the photographs. The State also asserts that, even if the trial objection sufficed to preserve the issue for appeal, the motion for a new trial did not. We find the trial objection sufficiently specific to include both the photographs and the testimony of the witness. However, the question was not properly preserved by the motion for a new trial.

In the motion for a new trial defendant brought a new theory of inadmissibility based on a constitutional violation of due process by denying the defendant effective cross-examination of the witness. Defendant claims that the witness's testimony denied him the ability to effectively cross examine the witness because such examination would have brought out evidence of prior criminal acts by the defendant and, thereby, denied his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This Court has clearly set out that in order to preserve a constitutional issue for appeal "a party must (1) raise the constitutional issue at the first available opportunity, (2) specifically designate the constitutional provision claimed to have been violated by express reference to the article and section of the constitution or by quoting the provision itself, (3) state the facts showing the violation; and (4) preserve the constitutional question throughout for appellate review." State v. Hillis, 748 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo.App.1988). Defense counsel's objection at trial failed to state any specific constitutional grounds for the objection to the witness's testimony. It was therefore not properly preserved for appeal. Point dismissed.

Notwithstanding the improper preservation of this issue for appeal, defendant's appeal does not succeed on the merits. We will examine, ex gratia, the questions of relevancy and admissibility of the testimony as prior crime evidence.

In his first point, def...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Huchting, s. 65861
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • June 11, 1996
    ...court except errors respecting the sufficiency of the information or indictment, verdict, judgment, or sentences." State v. Williams, 904 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). The relevant facts of the direct appeal reveal that at 6:50 a.m. on January 22, 1993, victim was attacked in the gara......
  • State v. Putfark
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 6, 2022
    ...that constitute the constitutional violation, and (4) preserve the constitutional issue throughout the proceeding. State v. Williams , 904 S.W.2d 103,105 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (quoting State v. Hillis , 748 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988) ).7 The protections provided by Section 18(a) of......
  • State v. Putfark
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 6, 2022
    ...... constitutional violation, and (4) preserve the constitutional. issue throughout the proceeding. State v. Williams ,. 904 S.W.2d 103,105 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) (quoting State v. Hillis , 748 S.W.2d 694, 697 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988)). . . ......
  • State v. Gannaway, SD 33994
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 4, 2016
    ...state the facts showing the violation; and (4) preserve the constitutional question throughout for appellate review.State v. Williams , 904 S.W.2d 103, 105 (Mo.App.E.D.1995) (internal quotations omitted); see also State v. Knifong , 53 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Mo.App.W.D.2001) (applying standard to......
  • 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