State v. Williams, 10125
| Decision Date | 05 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 10125,10125 |
| Citation | 536 S.W.2d 947 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Lawrence H. Rost, New Madrid, for appellant.
Before BILLINGS, C.J., and HOGAN and FLANIGAN, JJ.
Defendant Charles Williams was convicted by a Butler County jury of the first degree robbery of Mrs. Sandra Midkiff and the felonious assault of Norris Pullen, and the trial court ordered consecutive sentences. Illegal search and seizure, a tainted in-court identification, and evidence of a separate crime are assigned as errors. We affirm.
On December 4, 1973, at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, Mrs. Midkiff was alone in the package liquor store she and her husband operated in Stoddard County. The defendant, a Negro dressed in a yellow shirt and red plaid pants, entered the store and made inquiries about lunch meats. Some conversation ensued between the proprietress and the defendant, and then two other Negro men, identified as the Rosses, entered the store. One of the Rosses was brandishing a pistol. Mrs. Midkiff was beaten, bound with rope, and her eyes and mouth taped. The cash register was rifled, as was Mrs. Midkiff's purse, and liquor and cigarettes were taken. Mrs. Midkiff heard a gunshot. Before the trio left, a bottle was forcibly inserted into her vagina.
About 2:20 p.m. Norris Pullen arrived at the liquor store. He saw a Buick automobile parked outside the store and noticed the right front fender was missing. As Pullen neared the front door and reached down to pick up a coin from the ground, he was struck on the head and rendered unconscious. Pullen was also shot, bound, and covered with a mattress in the rear part of the store.
About 3 o'clock Herman Maxwell saw the defendant and two other men climb from the Buick near the intersection of Route P and Interstate Highway 55 in New Madrid County. The three men 'got the stuff out of the car, cigarettes, and run across the highway and got into a car with another fellow and left.'
Authorities had the Buick towed to New Madrid where an officer of the Missouri State Highway Patrol examined the car about 5 o'clock. He found several bottles of whiskey on the floorboard and underneath a seat and found a check stub with Mr. Midkiff's name on it on the rear floorboard. The officer also removed a portion of the floor mat from the vehicle.
Deputy Sheriff Dees went to the home of defendant's mother in New Madrid that night and, after being granted permission to look for clothing worn by the defendant during the day, found and took into possession a yellow shirt and red plaid pants.
It is clear from the transcript that the defendant and his companions abandoned the Buick automobile, and the subsequent search and seizure of the whiskey bottles and check stub was not rendered unconstitutional by lack of a search warrant. State v. Achter, 512 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1974). Furthermore, defendant did not present any evidence to demonstrate his standing to assert the illegality of the search and seizure. There was no evidence defendant was the owner or had any possessory interest in the automobile. State v. Damico, 513 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.1974); State v. Hornbeck, 492 S.W.2d 802 (Mo.1973). Defendant's point is without merit.
We do not agree Mrs. Midkiff's in-court identification of the defendant was tainted by an earlier impermissible line-up identification. The record demonstrates that Mrs. Midkiff had ample opportunity to closely observe the defendant during the period prior to and during the initial stages of the robbery. Her in-court identification of the defendant as one of the robbers had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blair
...effects sought to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 993, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); State v. Williams, 536 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Mo.App.1976). In the instant case, there was substantial evidence for the trial court to find that appellant lived with his mother an......
-
State v. Worthon
...348 F.2d 325 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 382 U.S. 944, 86 S.Ct. 387, 15 L.Ed.2d 353 (1965); State v. Pruitt, supra, at 788; State v. Williams, 536 S.W.2d 947 (Mo.App.1976). Finally, the defendant would vitiate the consent because it was not voluntary. It is true the burden of proving a volunta......
-
State v. Abbott
...of a valid consent search and were admissible in evidence. State v. Pruitt, 479 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Mo.banc 1972); State v. Williams, 536 S.W.2d 947, 949(4) (Mo.App.1976). The defendant's further point, that his arrest was a purely investigatory arrest and that any statement obtained after he ......
-
R.A.J. v. L.B.V.
... ... In Klahr v. Court of Appeals of State, Div. One, 134 Ariz. 67, 68-69, 654 P.2d 1, 2-3 (1982), the court held that a child who was the ... ...