T.L.C. v. T.L.C., No. WD
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Writing for the Court | LAURA DENVIR STITH |
Citation | 950 S.W.2d 293 |
Decision Date | 19 August 1997 |
Docket Number | No. WD |
Parties | In the Interest of T.L.C. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. T.L.C., Appellant. 53419. |
Page 293
v.
T.L.C., Appellant.
Western District.
Page 294
Madonna L. Limberg, Kansas City, for appellant.
Robert M. Schieber, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.
LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge.
T.L.C., a juvenile, appeals from a judgment below finding him guilty of two counts of first degree assault. He claims that the Juvenile Officer failed to sustain his burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the only two witnesses was so internally contradictory on material issues that, under the doctrine of "destructive contradictions," their testimony was so incompetent that it was inadequate to sustain the charges. We disagree that the testimony of these two witnesses was so contradictory that it was robbed of all probative force, and affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
T.L.C., a fifteen year-old male, was charged by the Juvenile Officer with two counts of first degree assault, a class B felony. See § 565.050, RSMo 1993. T.L.C. denied the charges and the case came to trial on July 30, 1996 in the Family Court Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court. The following evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the judgment, was presented at trial.
On April 27, 1996, Jeff Talbert hosted a barbeque to celebrate Andre White's birthday. Between ten and twenty-five people attended the barbecue. As the sun was setting, T.L.C. and two of his juvenile friends arrived at the party. Mr. Talbert, Andre White, and Andre's brother Darryl knew T.L.C. because he and his family lived down the street from Mr. Talbert.
T.L.C. twice attempted to obtain alcoholic drinks at the party, but spilled them both. At that point, Darryl White told T.L.C. to leave because he was intoxicated. T.L.C. refused, and a scuffle ensued as Darryl attempted to forcibly remove T.L.C. During their scuffle, both Darryl and T.L.C. fell off of the porch, with T.L.C. winding up on top of Darryl in the yard. Darryl later testified that he felt T.L.C. "going into his pocket" for something, and that T.L.C. then pulled out a gun and fired three shots, one of which grazed Darryl in the upper thigh. Darryl delivered three or four more blows to T.L.C.'s head and attempted to restrain T.L.C. until Darryl's leg started hurting. Darryl then fell to the side and T.L.C. got up and ran down the street to his family's house.
Andre White saw his brother and T.L.C. fall off of the porch together. He testified at trial that when he saw and heard T.L.C. fire three shots from a gun during the struggle, he ran inside and called the police and then came back outside. He testified that at that point he found that his brother was not seriously injured by the shots, so he and his brother left the Talbert property. They drove to their mother's house. Darryl's wife then called the police and asked them to come to the mother's house.
Page 295
When the police arrived, Darryl showed them the grazing wound to his upper thigh. He turned over to the police his pants--with some bullet holes in them--and a bullet slug that came out of his sweatshirt. By that point, Andre realized that he had also been slightly grazed in the leg by one of the bullets T.L.C. fired. He testified at trial that he showed that graze wound to the police also. Neither Darryl nor Andre received medical attention. T.L.C., however, was taken to the hospital by ambulance and received...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stanley v. McSwain, Case No. 4:13 CV 1760 RWS (ACL)
...contradictory and diametrically opposed to one another that they rob the testimony of all probative force." T.L.C. v. T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). It is properly invoked only when "the testimony is so 'inherently incredible, self-destructive or opposed to known......
-
Juvenile Officer v. A.G.R. (In re A.G.R.), No. WD 73007.
...of Review We review a juvenile proceeding under the same standard we apply in other court-tried civil cases. In the Interest of T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). The judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of th......
-
State v. Davison
...contradictory and diametrically opposed to one another that they rob the testimony of all probative force." T.L.C. v. T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). It is properly invoked only when "the testimony is so 'inherently incredible, self-destructive or opposed to know......
-
State v. Uptegrove, No. WD 72356.
...that reliance on the testimony is [330 S.W.3d 591] necessarily precluded.” Juvenile Officer v. T.L.C. (In the Interest of T.L.C.), 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (quoting State v. Beckett, 858 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.App. W.D.1993)); see also Case, 140 S.W.3d at 91. Uptegrove insists th......
-
Stanley v. McSwain, Case No. 4:13 CV 1760 RWS (ACL)
...contradictory and diametrically opposed to one another that they rob the testimony of all probative force." T.L.C. v. T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). It is properly invoked only when "the testimony is so 'inherently incredible, self-destructive or opposed to known......
-
Juvenile Officer v. A.G.R. (In re A.G.R.), No. WD 73007.
...of Review We review a juvenile proceeding under the same standard we apply in other court-tried civil cases. In the Interest of T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). The judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of th......
-
State v. Davison
...contradictory and diametrically opposed to one another that they rob the testimony of all probative force." T.L.C. v. T.L.C., 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). It is properly invoked only when "the testimony is so 'inherently incredible, self-destructive or opposed to know......
-
State v. Uptegrove, No. WD 72356.
...that reliance on the testimony is [330 S.W.3d 591] necessarily precluded.” Juvenile Officer v. T.L.C. (In the Interest of T.L.C.), 950 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (quoting State v. Beckett, 858 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.App. W.D.1993)); see also Case, 140 S.W.3d at 91. Uptegrove insists th......