State v. Reed
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 114
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Reed was indicted as a prior/persistent felony offender on multiple counts: burglary in the second degree, resisting arrest, stealing under $500, trespassing in the first degree, and property damage in the second degree.
- At trial (July 2009), Reed admitted prior burglaries, establishing his offender status.
- Warden identified Reed at the scene and testified to entering and taking a hammer from two houses, with doors damaged and without permission.
- Police recovered a hammer at the scene; the hammer belonged to the homeowners, supporting burglary, trespass, and property-damage elements.
- Reed fled from police when approached; Officer Tesreau tased Reed in two confirmed instances, with later testimony alleging a third firing.
- Post-verdict, data downloaded from the taser purportedly showed three firings; Reed sought a new trial on Brady grounds, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest | Reed argues insufficient proof of arrest notice. | Reed contends officer did not testify Reed was informed of arrest. | Sufficient evidence showed arrest and flight; conviction upheld. |
| Hearsay testimony admission error | Reed claims improper hearsay via radio-reported ID. | Identifications were cumulative and Warden testified; Confrontation not violated. | No plain error; evidence cumulative and Confrontation intact. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary, trespass, theft, property damage | Reed asserts lack of in-court identification and proof. | Totality of evidence identified Reed as culprit. | Sufficient evidence supported all convictions. |
| Brady violation claim and new trial denial | Newly discovered taser data could impeach the officer’s credibility. | No favorable, material evidence shown; not dispositive. | No Brady violation; no abuse of discretion in denying new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Daws, 311 S.W.3d 806 (Mo. banc 2010) (five elements of resisting arrest; factual framework used)
- State v. Gaines, 316 S.W.3d 440 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (in-court identifications not mandatory when total evidence identifies defendant)
- State v. Baker, 23 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (sufficiency of identification by totality of evidence)
- Guese v. State, 248 S.W.3d 69 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (Confrontation Clause not violated when declarant available for cross-examination)
- State v. Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2009) (Confrontation considerations in identification evidence)
- State v. McGee, 284 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (hearsay evidence admissibility when cumulative to other proof)
- State v. Bynum, 299 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (plain-error review; framework for Brady analysis)
- Goodwin, 43 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. banc 2001) (Brady materiality and fair trial standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality and prejudice framework for suppressed evidence)