State v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Miller

501 S.W.2d 547, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1373

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 5, 1973

DocketNo. KCD26333

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 501 S.W.2d 547 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 501 S.W.2d 547, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After trial in Division 3 of the Circuit Court, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, the jury found defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree and assessed his punishment at ten years.

On the day following the robbery, the defendant was arrested. The victim was summoned to the scene of the arrest and identified the defendant as a participant in the robbery. After the confrontation, the defendant and his brother, [see companion case: State v. Miller, 490 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.1973)], arrested and identified at the same time, were taken to the county jail and charged with the robbery.

Defendant appeals that the confrontation, at the scene of the arrest, deprived him of due process of law. Also, though not properly preserved, the issue should be considered plain error. [Rule 27.20(c) V. A.M.R.]. The exclusionary rule does not apply to testimony concerning an identification prior to the commencement of any prosecution. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L. Ed.2d 411 (1972). The circumstances of the confrontation being first adduced by defense counsel on cross-examination, the plain error rule is not applicable. State v. Franklin, 448 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.1970).

Therefore, the verdict being supported by substantial evidence, no error of law appearing, and an extended opinion being without precedential value, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

After trial in Division 3 of the Circuit Court, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, the jury found defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree and assessed his punishment at ten years.

On the day following the robbery, the defendant was arrested. The victim was summoned to the scene of the arrest and identified the defendant as a participant in the robbery. After the confrontation, the defendant and his brother, [see companion case: State v. Miller, 490 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.1973)], arrested and identified at the same time, were taken to the county jail and charged with the robbery.

Defendant appeals that the confrontation, at the scene of the arrest, deprived him of due process of law. Also, though not properly preserved, the issue should be considered plain error. [Rule 27.20(c) V. A.M.R.]. The exclusionary rule does not apply to testimony concerning an identification prior to the commencement of any prosecution. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877, 32 L. Ed.2d 411 (1972). The circumstances of the confrontation being first adduced by defense counsel on cross-examination, the plain error rule is not applicable. State v. Franklin, 448 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.1970).

Therefore, the verdict being supported by substantial evidence, no error of law appearing, and an extended opinion being without precedential value, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 S.W.2d 547, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-moctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack