State v. Williams, Nos. 64013
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | PUDLOWSKI; SMITH, P.J., and WHITE |
| Citation | 904 S.W.2d 103 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas WILLIAMS, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 22 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | 66617,Nos. 64013 |
Page 103
v.
Thomas WILLIAMS, Defendant/Appellant.
Thomas WILLIAMS, Movant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Eastern District,
Division Two.
Page 104
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.
Page 105
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huchting, Nos. 65861
...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. The relevant facts of the direct appeal reveal that at 6:50 a.m. on January 22, 1993, victim was attacked in the garage of her a......
-
State v. Putfark, WD 84246
...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. Gannaway, No. SD 33994
...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......
-
State v. Blair, No. ED 84888.
...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). When a constitutional issue is raised for the first t......
-
State v. Huchting, Nos. 65861
...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. The relevant facts of the direct appeal reveal that at 6:50 a.m. on January 22, 1993, victim was attacked in the garage of her a......
-
State v. Putfark, WD 84246
...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. Gannaway, No. SD 33994
...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......
-
State v. Burgin, No. ED 86200.
...This court is constitutionally bound to follow the most recent controlling decision of the Missouri Supreme Court. State v. Williams, 904 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). Therefore, even though Beine was decided eight days after Burgin's conviction, it properly applies to this The State ......