Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

621 S.W.2d 93, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3759

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 18, 1981

DocketNo. 43053

StatusPublished

This text of 621 S.W.2d 93 (Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. State, 621 S.W.2d 93, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3759 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant was charged with assault with intent to kill with malice aforethought and first degree robbery. A jury acquitted him of the former charge and convicted him of the latter offense. The court sentenced movant to a term of twenty years. His conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Lee, 536 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.App.1976). Movant subsequently filed a Rule 27.26 motion and after an evidentiary hearing the motion was denied. Movant appeals.

The facts relevant to this appeal focus on a chance meeting between Brendan Ryan, Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, and Mrs. Valier, a juror in movant’s trial. Mr. Allred, one of Mr. Ryan’s assistants, was trying defendant’s case. One evening during the course of the trial Mr. Ryan attended a reception at the mayor’s office. Mrs. Valier was also in attendance. Mrs. Valier introduced herself to Mr. Ryan as a juror in the case in which Mr. Allred was the prosecutor. She stated that “according to the court’s instruction I am prohibited from discussing anything about the cases.” Mr. Ryan replied “Yes, that is right” and no further discussion concerning the case took place. Although not directly involved in the case, Mr. Ryan felt that he should disclose the incident to the court. On his way to the judge’s chamber he passed by some jurors including Mrs. Valier who greeted him saying “Good morning Brendan.” The disclosure of these events was made by Mr. Ryan to the court in the presence of mov-ant’s attorney. Movant’s attorney requested no relief and apparently did not inform defendant of the incident.

The record presented to us for review reveals no basis for granting relief to mov-ant. There is no evidence indicating either prosecutorial or juror misconduct. Although movant claims the limited contact between the juror and the circuit attorney indicated juror prejudice, movant ignores the fact that the juror voted for acquittal on the assault charge. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court’s denial of movant’s Rule 27.26 motion is not clearly erroneous. Goff v. State, 612 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.App.1981).

Affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant was charged with assault with intent to kill with malice aforethought and first degree robbery. A jury acquitted him of the former charge and convicted him of the latter offense. The court sentenced movant to a term of twenty years. His conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Lee, 536 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.App.1976). Movant subsequently filed a Rule 27.26 motion and after an evidentiary hearing the motion was denied. Movant appeals.

The facts relevant to this appeal focus on a chance meeting between Brendan Ryan, Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis, and Mrs. Valier, a juror in movant’s trial. Mr. Allred, one of Mr. Ryan’s assistants, was trying defendant’s case. One evening during the course of the trial Mr. Ryan attended a reception at the mayor’s office. Mrs. Valier was also in attendance. Mrs. Valier introduced herself to Mr. Ryan as a juror in the case in which Mr. Allred was the prosecutor. She stated that “according to the court’s instruction I am prohibited from discussing anything about the cases.” Mr. Ryan replied “Yes, that is right” and no further discussion concerning the case took place. Although not directly involved in the case, Mr. Ryan felt that he should disclose the incident to the court. On his way to the judge’s chamber he passed by some jurors including Mrs. Valier who greeted him saying “Good morning Brendan.” The disclosure of these events was made by Mr. Ryan to the court in the presence of mov-ant’s attorney. Movant’s attorney requested no relief and apparently did not inform defendant of the incident.

The record presented to us for review reveals no basis for granting relief to mov-ant. There is no evidence indicating either prosecutorial or juror misconduct. Although movant claims the limited contact between the juror and the circuit attorney indicated juror prejudice, movant ignores the fact that the juror voted for acquittal on the assault charge. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the trial court’s denial of movant’s Rule 27.26 motion is not clearly erroneous. Goff v. State, 612 S.W.2d 900 (Mo.App.1981).

Affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 S.W.2d 93, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3759, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack