State v. Ball

562 S.W.2d 136, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2467
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 10, 1978
DocketNo. 37878
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 562 S.W.2d 136 (State v. Ball) 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
State v. Ball, 562 S.W.2d 136, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2467 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

CLEMENS, Presiding Judge.

Second-degree burglary of a television appliance store. Defendant’s only point on appeal challenges evidence he threatened and assaulted a witness.

Defendant was a friend of state’s witness Janiece Preston who lived next door to the burglarized store. She testified that before the burglary defendant and a friend were at her home and said they were going to try to enter the store.

Defendant challenges Ms. Preston’s further testimony that two days after the burglary defendant came to her home and — with a pistol in hand — warned her not to say anything about having heard of his intention to break into the store. She also testified that three days later defendant broke into her home, told her he had seen her talking to a police officer and had given her a black eye.

Defendant relies on the general rule that evidence of other crimes is inadmissible, citing State v. Reece, 274 S.W.2d 304 (Mo.1954). This general rule excepts evidence of other crimes that are “so related that proof of one tends to establish the other.” The principle was laid down in State v. Kilgore, 447 S.W.2d 544[3] (Mo.1969), and applied to a like issue as now before us in State v. Corlew, 463 S.W.2d 836[5] (Mo.1971) a burglary case where defendant threatened and assaulted potential witnesses. Upholding admission, the court ruled: “It has long been recognized that evidence of threats by the defendant against witnesses against him may be produced in order to establish his guilt on the original charge.”

The challenged evidence here tended to show defendant’s consciousness of guilt and was properly admitted.

Judgment affirmed.

SMITH and McMILLIAN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

State v. DeClue
805 S.W.2d 253 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
State v. Moiser
738 S.W.2d 549 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Pernell
606 S.W.2d 389 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
562 S.W.2d 136, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ball-moctapp-1978.