State v. Chambers
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Defendant Charles E. Chambers was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action.
- Robbery occurred at approximately 1:20 a.m. on December 17, 2006, at the Chrome Bar in St. Louis; money and valuables were taken from victims.
- Defendant testified that he found money on the sidewalk and carried two bundles, one from SSI/odd jobs; police later found the money on him.
- During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked about Defendant’s postarrest silence prior to any Miranda warning; defense moved for mistrial.
- Instruction 9 and other jury instructions addressed prior offenses and credibility; defense objected to alleged personalization in closing.
- Written judgment erroneously stated sentences in a way that differed from the oral pronouncement; the court corrected the clerical error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of mistrial was proper | Chambers opened the door by testifying; silence impeachment valid. | Post-arrest silence violated Doyle and due process; improper impeachment. | Overruled; proper impeachment allowed under Antwine/Missouri rule. |
| Whether MAI-CR 310.10 instruction was improper | Instruction correctly listed offenses to assess credibility. | Repetition/length of offenses unduly emphasized prior crimes. | Instruction 9 affirmed; not unduly prejudicial. |
| Whether closing argument personalization was improper | Use of 'you' and scenarios did not personalize; contextual eyewitness difficulty. | Prosecutor improperly personalized by urging jurors to place themselves in victims’ shoes. | Not error; no improper personalization. |
| Whether written judgment misstated sentence | Judgment accurately reflected total sentence; no clerical issue. | Written judgment materially differed from oral sentence. | Clerical correction granted; oral pronouncement controls; modify judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence cannot be used for impeachment after Miranda warnings)
- Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (silence impeachment allowed when arrestee testifies without Miranda protections)
- Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. banc 1987) (post-arrest silence proper where exculpatory statement expected and not constitutionally protected)
- Myers, 997 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (impeachment of defendant who testifies with prior inconsistent statements)
- Cantrell, 775 S.W.2d 319 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (MAI-CR 310.10 requires specifying offenses for credibility instruction)
- Brooks, 304 S.W.3d 130 (Mo. banc 2010) (Miranda warnings and Fifth Amendment considerations relevant to post-arrest conduct)
- State v. Hastings, 308 S.W.3d 792 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (oral pronouncement controls when clerical error exists in judgment)
- State v. McGee, 284 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (remand unnecessary when sentence may be corrected)
- State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. banc 1995) (prohibition on prosecutorial personalization)
- State v. Lyons, 951 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1997) (wording 'you' does not automatically constitute personalization)
- State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. banc 1997) (contextualization of eyewitness testimony in closing)