State v. Harris

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Harris

654 S.W.2d 183, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4027

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 1983

DocketNo. 45206

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 654 S.W.2d 183 (State v. Harris) 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. Harris, 654 S.W.2d 183, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4027 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Burglary conviction. Defendant was sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment as a persistent offender. We affirm.

Willie Forrest was parked in front of victim’s house at about 3 o’clock in the morning. He was waiting to take victim to work but victim had overslept. As he sat in his car waiting for victim, Forrest watched defendant and a taller man come down the street past him and then enter victim’s house. Having seen the two enter the victim’s house, Forrest honked his horn awakening victim. Upon awakening, victim found a man he recognized in his living room. He did not see defendant. The two men took victim’s T.V. set and stereo and fled.

Forrest gave defendant’s description to a police officer in the presence of victim. Victim responded to this description by saying to the police officer “sounds like [defendant].” Defendant argues this response was admitted into evidence over his objection and was a reversible bolstering of identification testimony with hearsay. State v. Kirkland, 471 S.W.2d 191, 193-195 (Mo.1971).

Ordinarily, it is error to bolster identification testimony with hearsay statements. Such statements are considered inadmissible in order to prevent their being admitted into evidence without affording the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. State v. Ball, 622 S.W.2d 285, 290 (Mo.App.1981). In the instant case, defendant could not have been prejudiced as both victim and Forrest testified, and were cross-examined by the defendant at trial. Id.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Burglary conviction. Defendant was sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment as a persistent offender. We affirm.

Willie Forrest was parked in front of victim’s house at about 3 o’clock in the morning. He was waiting to take victim to work but victim had overslept. As he sat in his car waiting for victim, Forrest watched defendant and a taller man come down the street past him and then enter victim’s house. Having seen the two enter the victim’s house, Forrest honked his horn awakening victim. Upon awakening, victim found a man he recognized in his living room. He did not see defendant. The two men took victim’s T.V. set and stereo and fled.

Forrest gave defendant’s description to a police officer in the presence of victim. Victim responded to this description by saying to the police officer “sounds like [defendant].” Defendant argues this response was admitted into evidence over his objection and was a reversible bolstering of identification testimony with hearsay. State v. Kirkland, 471 S.W.2d 191, 193-195 (Mo.1971).

Ordinarily, it is error to bolster identification testimony with hearsay statements. Such statements are considered inadmissible in order to prevent their being admitted into evidence without affording the defendant an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. State v. Ball, 622 S.W.2d 285, 290 (Mo.App.1981). In the instant case, defendant could not have been prejudiced as both victim and Forrest testified, and were cross-examined by the defendant at trial. Id.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 S.W.2d 183, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harris-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack