State v. Floyd
347 S.W.3d 115
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Floyd was convicted of first‑degree murder and armed criminal action for the March 11, 2008 shooting of Virgil Robinson.
- Abram, Bolhous, Smith, Brown, Lieutenant Robinson, Detective Stagge, Detective Hanewinkel, and Detective Minor testified for the State; Washington testified for Floyd as an alibi.
- Abram identified Floyd in a photo lineup and in a physical lineup, and later in court; Abram also described Floyd’s appearance at the scene.
- Abram’s testimony and other witnesses placed Floyd near Yeatman School around the time of the shooting; shell casings were found at the scene.
- Floyd’s statement to Detective Hanewinkel was used in rebuttal to impeach Washington’s alibi testimony; Floyd did not request a Denno voluntariness hearing, and the trial court admitted the statement.
- Floyd challenged identification procedures as unduly suggestive in photo and physical lineups, but the court held the procedures not impermissibly suggestive and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rebuttal evidence admissibility | Floyd argues Hanewinkel’s rebuttal testimony was collateral and beyond scope | State contends rebuttal undercuts alibi credibility and was proper | Not error; rebuttal admissible and properly limited |
| Identification procedures | Identification procedures were unduly suggestive and unreliable | Procedures were not impermissibly suggestive; reliability supports identification | Not plain error; procedures not unduly suggestive; identifications admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gardner, 8 S.W.3d 66 (Mo. banc 1999) (broad discretion in rebuttal; abuse requires clear unreasonableness)
- State v. Leisure, 749 S.W.2d 366 (Mo. banc 1988) (scope of rebuttal evidence beyond trial testinuage standard)
- State v. Roberts, 622 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. App. E.D. 1981) (rebuttal may counteract defense credibility concerns)
- State v. Isa, 850 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. banc 1993) (admission of statements viewed in totality of circumstances; consciousness of guilt)
- State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1999) (factors for reliability of pre-trial identifications)
- State v. Miller, 29 S.W.2d 54 (Mo. 1930) (rebuttal admissions used to rebut alibi)