State v. Pate
469 S.W.3d 904
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Around midnight on Oct. 25, 2012, Victim was accosted in his apartment parking lot by two men; one (Pate) pointed a gun and the other held a knife; Victim’s car, a laptop, and a cell phone were taken.
- Police tracked the stolen cell phone to a retail store and to Darnesha Nunn, who identified Pate from surveillance photos and said Pate gave her the phone and laptop to sell.
- Victim identified Pate and Valley in photographic lineups; Detective Meinhardt issued a police "wanted" notice (not a judicial arrest warrant).
- Cuba, MO officers arrested Pate on the wanted; he was transported to University City, interviewed, and after initial Miranda warnings Detective Meinhardt later obtained arrest warrants and Pate gave a written confession.
- Pate moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial right and to suppress his statements (arguing unlawful warrantless arrest and detention beyond statutory 24 hours); the court denied relief, convicted Pate of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, and sentenced him to concurrent 13-year terms.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Pate's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 15–16 month delay violated right to speedy trial | Delay was largely neutral or for reasonable preparation; no prejudice to defense | Delay was presumptively prejudicial and violated Pate’s speedy-trial right | Court: Delay presumptively prejudicial but balancing factors favor State; no constitutional violation |
| Whether statements should be suppressed because arrest was warrantless/unlawful | Arrest was supported by probable cause based on photo ID, Nunn’s statements, and victim ID; statements admissible | Warrantless arrest (wanted, not judge-signed warrant) rendered subsequent statements fruit of unlawful arrest | Court: Warrantless arrest valid under probable cause doctrine; statements not suppressed |
| Whether statements should be suppressed because detained over 24 hours without warrant (§544.170) | §544.170 addresses charging time, not probable cause; statements voluntary and arrest warrant obtained within 48 hours | Statutory 24-hour limit violated; detention tainted statements and required suppression | Court: Violation of §544.170 noted but did not automatically make statements involuntary; no suppression absent other coercion; warrant obtained within 48 hours |
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed criminal action (use of a gun) | Victim’s in-court testimony that Pate pointed a gun is sufficient | Victim had not seen a real gun before and may have mistaken an object; testimony disputed by Nunn (stun gun) | Court: Victim’s testimony alone sufficient for factfinder to conclude Pate used a gun; conviction supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (speedy-trial balancing test)
- Watson v. United States, 423 U.S. 411 (warrantless arrest valid if supported by probable cause)
- Hensley v. Williams, 469 U.S. 221 (police flyers/radio bulletins can justify stops/arrests when based on reasonable suspicion/probable cause)
- Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 (evidence may be excluded when bulletin lacks underlying probable cause)
- County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (48-hour rule for prompt judicial determination of probable cause)
- State ex rel. Garcia v. Goldman, 316 S.W.3d 907 (Missouri: eight months presumptively prejudicial delay)
- State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304 (Missouri standard for reviewing constitutional speedy-trial claims)
- State v. Clayton, 995 S.W.2d 468 (probable cause defined by collective knowledge and circumstances)