State v. Williams, 70213
| Decision Date | 08 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 70213,70213 |
| Citation | 948 S.W.2d 429 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Cory T. WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
N. Scott Rosenblum, Ramona L. Marten, Clayton, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cheryl A. Caponegro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant, Cory Williams, appeals from the judgment of convictions, entered pursuant to jury verdicts, of second degree murder (Count I), two counts of armed criminal action (Counts II and IV), first degree robbery (Count III), receiving stolen property (Count V), two counts of resisting arrest (Counts VI and X), stealing a motor vehicle (Count IX), first degree burglary (Count XI), and second degree burglary (Count XII). He was sentenced as a prior offender to terms of imprisonment of life on Count I, five years on each of Counts II and IV, and twenty years on Count III, each of these sentences to be served consecutively to the other; and to terms of imprisonment of five years on each of Counts V, IX, XI, and XII, and one year on each of Counts VI and X, these sentences to be served concurrently. We affirm.
The evidence established that on November 15 1994, at around midnight, defendant approached a parked, white minivan in which a 72-year-old woman was sitting in the driver's seat. Pointing a gun at her and her passenger, he forced them out of the van and drove off.
On November 16, 1994, around 2:00 a.m., a police officer observed a white van tailgating a green truck. Although the officer attempted to follow the vehicles, he lost them. Shortly thereafter, he heard a dispatch about shots fired and responded to the location of the shots. When he arrived at the scene, the green truck was in the driveway to a residence and the white van was parked on the street in front of the residence. Defendant was in the driver's seat of the van. Defendant's associate, Darney Towers, walked from the house and got into the van. They drove off.
Meanwhile, the driver of the green truck, Steven McFarland, was lying on the porch of the residence, bleeding. The driver's side window of the green truck was shattered and keys were hanging in the lock of the driver's side door. On the driveway between the truck and the house, .25 caliber shell casings were found; and a .380 shell casing was discovered near the porch. McFarland died from a gunshot wound to the neck.
A second police officer pursued the van as it left the residence. He observed two men in the van. Towers was driving and defendant was in the passenger seat reclining all the way back. The officer gave chase until the van crashed into a tree. When Towers got out of the van and ran, the officer chased him on foot until he heard shots coming from the van. He turned and saw defendant hanging over the front passenger side of the van. Defendant turned and ran away. The officer continued his pursuit of Towers and captured him.
A search of the van uncovered two semi-automatic weapons, a .380 caliber gun and a .25 caliber gun. A spent .25 caliber shell casing was discovered between the front bucket seats. Defendant's finger prints were found on the van.
At about 3:30 a.m. that same morning, defendant stole a black Camaro automobile which the owner had left running in the driveway of his house. A third police officer observed the Camaro traveling at a high rate of speed on I-170 and gave chase with his red lights flashing. Although the police officer lost the Camaro, he radioed the last known position of the car and other police officers took up the chase. Defendant abandoned the vehicle on an exit ramp and ran away on foot. Defendant's fingerprints were found on the Camaro.
A fourth police officer organized a manhunt for defendant. He observed defendant use a pay phone and then walk down the street; and he followed. When defendant saw the officer trailing him, he broke into a run, despite the officer's identifying himself as a police officer and ordering defendant to stop.
At about 7:30 a.m., defendant broke into a house by breaking the glass in a window over the kitchen sink. The occupant of the house was sitting in the kitchen. She picked up the curtain rod that had fallen off the window and poked defendant, telling him to go away. Although he told her he wouldn't hurt her, she ran out of the house. When she returned home, she found her purse opened with money on the floor and her sliding glass door ajar. Defendant's fingerprint was discovered in the residence.
Defendant then broke into another house on the same street by forcing his way through a garage door and kicking in the door from the garage to the kitchen. He went through the closet and drawers in the master bedroom, scattered clothing on the floor, and used a first aid kit which was kept in the closet. He also removed a shotgun from the closet and placed it in another bedroom. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to start an automobile which was kept in the garage and his fingerprints were found on that vehicle. Sometime after 9:00 a.m., the police located defendant hiding under the bed in the master bedroom. He was wearing clothing taken from the house. His wrist was cut and he had been shot in the arm.
Defendant testified at trial. He stated that Towers was already in possession of the van when he picked him up. He asserted that he was passed out in the van when Towers pursued and murdered McFarland. He stated that Towers shot him in the arm after shooting McFarland. He admitted to taking the Camaro and breaking into two houses. Although he gave an audio taped statement to the police implicating himself in the crimes of which he was convicted, his position at trial was that the police had coerced him to confess. Defendant's audio taped statement was played for the jury at trial and transcripts of the tape were also provided.
In his first point, defendant contends the trial court erred in permitting the burglary victim who confronted him in her kitchen to testify by way of videotaped deposition because she was going to be out of town at the time of the trial. He argues Section 492.303 RSMo 1994 and the corresponding Rule 25.14 required a hearing upon application of counsel for the trial court to determine that the deposition was necessary to preserve the victim's testimony.
Although the State complied neither with Rule 25.14 nor with Section 492.303, defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the videotaped deposition of the burglary victim. On direct examination, defendant testified as follows:
[DEFENDANT]: ... When I went through the bushes I fell and rolled down and fell into the creek. I got up and I walked all the way down the creek and I ended up behind these other houses, which was [the victim's ] house and by that time I was really cold still 'cause it was a cold morning, it was winter.
Only thing I had was a vest and sweater on and those were soaking wet. I then went to the back window. There was a back sliding door and I had tapped on the door.
I don't know why I thought there wasn't nobody there. So I went through the window. I tried to go through the window that's when the lady appeared in the window.
In this testimony, defendant admitted to committing the burglary. Reversible error cannot be predicated upon the admission of evidence which the defendant later confirms by his own testimony. State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 811 (Mo.App.1989). Thus, defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the videotaped deposition testimony of the burglary victim. Defendant's first point is denied.
In his second point, defendant asserts the trial court erred in permitting the jury to use transcripts as an aid to following defendant's audio taped statement to the police. He claims the audiotape was unclear, the transcript was inaccurate, and the transcript was someone else's interpretation of his taped statement.
Transcripts of a tape recording may be used if portions of the tape...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kraus, 84,429.
...conversation as appellant failed to show that transcripts were inaccurate or that they prejudiced him in any way); State v. Williams, 948 S.W.2d 429, 432 (Mo. App. 1997) (no error in allowing jury to use transcript along with audiotaped conversation as long as jury could not take transcript......
-
Williams v. Norman
...under Missouri law it was within the discretion of the trial court to allow the jury to use the transcript. See State v. Williams, 948 S.W.2d 429, 432 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). For these reasons, Ground 13 is denied. Grounds Four and Fourteen: Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel In Groun......
-
State Of Mo. v. Sutton
...cannot be predicated upon the admission of evidence that is later confirmed by the defendant's own testimony. State v. Williams, 948 S.W.2d 429, 431-32 (Mo.App. E.D.1997); State v. Holland, 781 S.W.2d 808, 811 (Mo.App. E.D.1989)(no error in admitting copies of checks as defendant admitted d......
-
State v. Bryan
...error cannot be predicated upon the admission of evidence which the defendant later confirms by his own testimony." State v. Williams, 948 S.W.2d 429, 431-32 (Mo.App. 1997). Point In his second point, Defendant maintains the trial court erred in not sustaining his motion for judgment of acq......