Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/State v. Sager

State v. Sager

600 S.W.2d 541, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3126
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 5, 1980
DocketKCD 30389
StatusPublished
Cited by51 cases

This text of 600 S.W.2d 541 (State v. Sager) 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. Sager, 600 S.W.2d 541, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3126 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

MANFORD, Judge.

This is a direct appeal from a jury conviction for manslaughter. The trial court affixed punishment at ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. The judgment is affirmed.

On this appeal, the court is faced with five alleged points of error, which in summary are as follows: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in overruling ap *544 pellant’s motion to suppress evidence of an alleged oral statement of October 1, 1977 and further, in permitting appellant to be cross-examined about alleged oral statements of October 2 and October 5,1977, and the further use of said statements, because all of said statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602,16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); (2) the trial court erred as a matter of law by allowing opinion evidence as to who placed a bite mark upon the body of the deceased because [a] bite mark identification has not reached the point of scientific reliability and credibility to permit the use thereof as evidence in criminal trials, [b] the state’s witnesses were not sufficiently qualified as experts in the field to permit of their rendering an opinion as to the identity of the perpetrator of the bite mark and [c] the factual basis for such opinion was not supported by reliable and credible evidence; (3) the trial court erred as a matter of law in giving instruction No. 8 (MAI-CR 15.18— Manslaughter) because this instruction failed to inform the jury with the particular time of death (3:30-5:00 p. m.), allowing the jury to find appellant guilty without proof of the death of the victim during the time specified; (4) the trial court erred as a matter of law in giving instruction No. 8 (MAI-CR 15.18 — Manslaughter) because there was no evidence to support said instruction, and the credible evidence fails to support a finding of guilty for manslaughter, and the court erred in not granting appellant’s motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict; and as his final alleged error (5) appellant contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying him a new trial for the reason that the cumulative and prejudicial denial of due process resulted from the deliberate failure of the prosecutor to timely fully disclose the evidence ordered disclosed by the trial court and other complaints more fully set out in appellant’s motion for new trial contrary to the Mo.Const. Art. I, §§ 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18(a), 19, 20 and 21 and the U.S.Const. Amends. IV, V, VI, VII and XIV.

At approximately 3:20 p. m. on September 2,1977,14 year-old Julie Wittmeyer got off the Platte RIII school bus. The bus had stopped at its regular stop on HH Highway, which was at the entrance to the roadway leading to the Wittmeyer farm. A passing motorist observed Julie leave the school bus and proceed to her family’s mailbox. Between 5:30 and 6:00 p. m. on this same date, Julie’s father called the bus driver, only to learn Julie had gotten off the bus earlier in the day.

The father, accompanied by his son, commenced to search for Julie. As the two had covered a distance “pretty well down” the 3,161 foot driveway, the son discovered personal items belonging to Julie. These items consisted of a pair of brown shoes, part of a brown shirt, a pair of tan slacks, a blue notebook and an algebra book. These items were in an asparagus patch adjacent to the driveway, and within an area approximately 4 feet by 8 feet consisting of vegetation. This area of vegetation was matted down, indicating signs of a struggle.

The Platte County Sheriff was then contacted, and an intensive search commenced, which continued until about 1:30 a. m. the following morning. Rain temporarily interrupted the search. On the afternoon of September 3, 1977, part of a blouse and a bra were found and an evidence technician was sent to the scene to photograph these items. The search continued, involving some 200 to 300 persons, both law enforcement officials and volunteers. On September 4,1977, a local citizen was searching the area on horseback and discovered a body. Law enforcement officials were notified, and the body was identified as that of Julie Wittmeyer. The following are scaled drawings, depicting the area, the location of personal effects and the body of the victim. 1

*545

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

Related

People v. Prante
2021 IL App (5th) 200074 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2021)
State v. Floyd
347 S.W.3d 115 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)
Brooks v. State
748 So. 2d 736 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1999)
Howard v. State
701 So. 2d 274 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1997)
State v. Huchting
927 S.W.2d 411 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Henderson
913 S.W.2d 358 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
Eddie Lee Howard, Jr. v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1994
Levon Brooks v. State of Mississippi
Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992
State v. Davis
814 S.W.2d 593 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1991)
State v. Richards
804 P.2d 109 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1990)
Spence v. State
795 S.W.2d 743 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Fletcher v. Armontrout
725 F. Supp. 1075 (W.D. Missouri, 1989)
People v. Marsh
441 N.W.2d 33 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Vik
766 S.W.2d 641 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Walker
753 S.W.2d 44 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Armstrong
369 S.E.2d 870 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Endicott
732 S.W.2d 239 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Weekly
728 S.W.2d 664 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Woods
723 S.W.2d 488 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Stinson
397 N.W.2d 136 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
600 S.W.2d 541, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sager-moctapp-1980.