State v. Williams
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 352
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Appellant Belvin L. Williams, Jr. was convicted of first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action, and sentenced to four consecutive twenty-year terms.
- The offense occurred with Grady shot in the thigh, robbed, and assaulted after Crenshaw and others returned to St. Louis in the early morning hours of January 30, 2011.
- Grady did not know Appellant prior to the incident; he identified Appellant as the shooter in a physical lineup after learning of the photo from Jennifer.
- Appellant testified he remained at home after dinner with Crenshaw and their children and did not leave until after January 31, 2011, claiming he complied with parole conditions.
- Bostic corroborated that Appellant stayed home and that the house rules required him to be in by a certain time, supporting his alibi.
- Townsend, a parole officer, testified about electronic monitoring showing an unauthorized leave at 12:53 a.m. and unauthorized entry at 5:36 a.m. on January 30, 2011, with other data explaining monitor behavior.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying a juror replacement | Williams argues juror Hilt was sleeping and should have been replaced. | State contends the court properly assessed attentiveness and denied replacement. | No abuse; denial upheld. |
| Admission of Townsend's testimony on the monitoring system | Townsend's operation and malfunction testimony was speculative and outside expertise. | Townsend had adequate foundation and expertise to interpret reports; testimony admissible. | Admissible; qualified foundation; not an abuse. |
| Plain error regarding Section 559.125.2 privilege and Townsend data | Data obtained by parole officer should be privileged and inadmissible. | Appellant waived any privilege by asserting alibi and parole compliance. | Waiver occurred; Townsend testimony properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rose, 169 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (discretionary juror substitution standard)
- State v. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2006) (trial court broad discretion in evidentiary decisions)
- State v. Seddens, 878 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (expert qualification goes to weight, not admissibility)
- State v. Gillespie, 401 S.W.3d 560 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (waiver when defendant asserts privilege in litigation context)
- State v. Poole, 216 S.W.3d 271 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (expertise and weight considerations for scientific testimony)