State v. Gillespie
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 725
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Gillespie was convicted by jury of kidnapping and first-degree robbery; two ACA counts were acquitted and he was sentenced to two concurrent 30-year terms as a prior and persistent offender.
- Choudhury was assaulted after declining to buy drugs; Appellant restrained him in a headlock and coerced him, while a second man rifled Choudhury’s pockets and used his debit card at an ATM.
- The second man was identified via ATM surveillance video as James Scott, and Choudhury identified Appellant and Scott in lineups.
- Appellant testified in his defense, claiming he sold marijuana to Choudhury and that another man named Charles was involved; he described a drug-lade joint and disputed paying for goods.
- Officer Perry testified about Choudhury’s demeanor post-incident to counter Appellant’s defense theory, and a challenged omission about naming the second man was admitted and examined through cross-examination.
- Appellant argues two evidentiary issues on appeal: (1) proper scope of rebuttal testimony, (2) admissibility of post-arrest silence-related evidence; the court affirmed the judgment and held no reversible error on either point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rebuttal testimony scope | Appellant contends Perry’s rebuttal exceeded scope | State contends rebuttal explains defense0's claims | Point I denied |
| Post-arrest silence impeachment | Appellant claims omission about second man violated silence rule | State argues admissible as cross-examination of prior statements | Point II denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Floyd, 347 S.W.3d 115 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (scope and impact of rebuttal evidence; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Prince, 311 S.W.3d 327 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (impeachment limitations on post-arrest silence; Miranda warnings)
- State v. Hutchison, 957 S.W.2d 757 (Mo.banc 1997) (voluntary statements can trigger impeachment for omissions; prior inconsistent statements admissible)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1986) (post-arrest silence; due process concerns)
- Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (1980) (cross-examination of defendant’s statements and omissions; selective silence)
- State v. Steger, 209 S.W.3d 11 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (plain error standard in evidentiary review)
- State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693 (Mo.banc 2007) (impeachment; post-Miranda statements)