State v. Barnes

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Brooks

    618 S.W.2d 22 (Mo. 1981)   Cited 97 times
    Holding that prosecutor's statement in oral argument that confidential informants had told police officers that the defendant had been selling narcotics out of his house was permissible because evidence of that fact would be "arguably admissible" at trial to explain the police officer's surveillance of the defendant's house

    State v. Harris, 571 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Mo.App. 1978). It is well established that such testimony is admissible to explain the officers' conduct, supplying relevant background and continuity to the action. State v. McRoberts, 485 S.W.2d 70, 73 (Mo. 1972); State v. Barnes, 345 S.W.2d 130, 131-32 (Mo. 1961); State v. Bright, 269 S.W.2d 615, 623 (Mo. 1954); State v. Lewis, 576 S.W.2d 564, 566-67 (Mo. App. 1978). Under this rule the triers of fact can be provided a portrayal of the events in question, more likely to serve the ends of justice in that the jury is not called upon to speculate on the cause or reasons for the officers' subsequent activities.

  2. State v. Bankston

    63 N.J. 263 (N.J. 1973)   Cited 353 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that detective's recounting of information received from informant to explain reason for entry to tavern and arrest of defendant contravened defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him

    Such testimony has been held to be admissible to show that the officer was not acting in an arbitrary manner or to explain his subsequent conduct. State v. Lopez, 182 Kan. 46, 318 P.2d 662, 666 (Sup.Ct. 1957); State v. Barnes, 345 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.Sup.Ct. 1961); Foster v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 297, 163 S.E.2d 565 (Sup.Ct. App. 1968). However, when the officer becomes more specific by repeating what some other person told him concerning a crime by the accused the testimony violates the hearsay rule.

  3. State v. McRoberts

    485 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. 1972)   Cited 18 times
    In State v. McRoberts, 485 S.W.2d 70 (Mo. 1972) the testimony of a police officer that there came over the police radio a description of a blue Chevrolet with a license plate which was very close to the license plate on the automobile detained was held admissible over objection that what was broadcast over the radio was hearsay.

    Officer White's testimony that a communication came over the police radio describing the robbery, an automobile and a license number was properly admitted for the same reasons. And see State v. Barnes, Mo. Sup., 345 S.W.2d 130. No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

  4. State v. Kirkland

    471 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. 1971)   Cited 40 times
    In Kirkland, this Court found reversible error in permitting a police officer to relate that a named woman had told him she witnessed the defendant getting into a taxi-cab soon before its driver was robbed.

    The admission of the questioned hearsay constituted prejudicial error. Respondent cites State v. Hale, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 249, State v. Williams, Mo., 448 S.W.2d 865, Bond v. Wabash R. Co., Mo., 363 S.W.2d 1, 5 [3, 4] Mash v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., Mo., 341 S.W.2d 822, State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130, State v. Sarkis, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 723, and Nash v. United States, 405 F.2d 1047 (8 Cir. 1969). Bond v. Wabash, supra, was a suit for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

  5. State v. Garrett

    391 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. 1965)   Cited 30 times
    In State v. Garrett, 391 S.W.2d 235, 243 (Mo. 1965), this Court indicated that the enactment of § 3 of S.B. 143 did not adopt the diminished capacity doctrine.

    This objection, not having been raised at the earliest opportunity, was waived. State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130, 133. That statute has, however, been upheld as against sundry constitutional objections in opinions which definitely preclude the present contention.

  6. State v. Reid

    391 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. 1965)   Cited 8 times

    If the prior judgment was not void, the complaint now made has been waived. State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130. Counsel seeks to attack the judgment collaterally. The prior proceedings were instituted by information filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County.

  7. State v. Crow

    377 S.W.2d 129 (Mo. 1964)   Cited 6 times
    In State v. Crow, Mo., 377 S.W.2d 129, cert. denied 85 S.Ct. 124, 379 U.S. 861, 13 L.Ed.2d 65, it appeared that counsel had withdrawn without notice prior to the time of allocution and sentence, and there was a controversy as to whether a motion for new trial had been mailed within time by defendant from the jail; defendant, present in person, stated that he wanted counsel and denied that he had discharged his prior counsel.

    In his brief defendant purports to raise several constitutional questions, some of which were not at any time presented to the trial court, and none of which were presented in a motion for new trial as far as shown by the record, and for that reason, if not because of the limited scope of our review, they are not preserved for appellate review. State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130; State v. Griffin, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 803, certiorari denied, 366 U.S. 938, 81 S.Ct. 1666, 6 L.Ed.2d 849; State v. Malone, Mo., 301 S.W.2d 750. However, in his brief defendant does challenge the sufficiency of the amended information.

  8. State v. Deckard

    354 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. 1962)   Cited 10 times

    The court, outside the presence of the jury panel, heard the evidence on the habitual criminal charge and announced its finding that defendant had been convicted of two prior felonies within the provisions of § 556.280. See State v. Barnes, Mo., 345 S.W.2d 130, 133; State v. Griffin, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 803, 806[8,9], certiorari denied 366 U.S. 938, 81 S.Ct. 1666, 6 L.Ed.2d 849. The jury was empaneled and sworn.

  9. State v. Hoover

    220 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 11 times

    When the testimony of an in-court witness about another's statement is offered to explain the conduct of the witness who is testifying rather than as proof of the facts asserted in the statement, the testimony does not constitute hearsay. State v. McCann, 792 S.W.2d 890, 893 (Mo.App.E.D. 1990); See also State v. Barnes, 345 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo. 1961) (testimony as to a statement tending to explain subsequent conduct of the testifying witness is admissible); State v. Brooks, 618 S.W.2d 22, 25 (Mo. banc 1981) (police officer's testimony of informant's observation properly offered to show police officer's conduct); But see State v. Shigemura, 680 S.W.2d 256, 257 (Mo.App.E.D. 1984) (court rejects state's position that statement was offered merely to explain subsequent police conduct and not for its truth where statement connected defendant directly to the crime); State v. Douglas, 131 S.W.3d 818, 824 (Mo.App.W.D.2004) (out-of-court statements that go beyond what is necessary to explain subsequent police conduct are hearsay). The concurring opinion argues that Robert Hoover's statements were offered only to prove the fact that they were made rather than for their truth and thus were offered for a non-hearsay purpose.

  10. State v. Taylor

    735 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    In State v. Taylor, 735 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.App. 1987), defendant was found guilty of having deviate sexual intercourse with a girl to whom he was not married and who was less than 14 years of age. He was sentenced as a persistent sexual offender to imprisonment for 50 years without parole.

    Only after the trial court announced it would find the statements admissible did the defendant contend the action was contrary to said Art. I, § 18(a). This did not preserve the question of the constitutionality of that statute for review. Cf. State v. Barnes, 345 S.W.2d 130 (Mo. 1961). Defendant's belated argument of unconstitutionality does not remove this case from the jurisdiction of this court.