Defendant was convicted by a jury of seven counts of rape, sixteen counts of sodomy, four counts of incest and two counts оf promoting prostitution. He was sentenced by the trial court as a prior offender as follows:
(1) A term of imprisonment of fifteen (15) yеars each in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Human Resources for the offense, Counts 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, Rapes, Class B Fеlonies; a term of imprisonment of five (5) years each for the offenses, Count 9, 10 and 12, Incest, Class D Felonies; and a term of imprisonmеnt of fifteen (15) years each for the offenses, Counts 18 and 14 of Promoting Prostitution, First Degree, Class B Felonies. Each of the sentences imposed above were to run consecutively, for a total of 120 years.
(2) Defendant was further sentenced to serve a tеrm of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years each for the offenses, Counts 4, 5, 6, 30 and 16 through 27, Sodomy, Class B Felonies; a term of imprisonment of five (5) years for the offense, Count 11, Incest, a Class D Felony; and a term of imprison
Defendant and his wife had a daughter in 1966 and a son in 1967. Defendant and wife separаted in 1975. The two children thereafter lived with the defendant father. At trial, defendant presented no evidence in his behalf. The evidence favorable to the verdict showed defendant was guilty of continuing incestual sexual conduct with his son and daughter for many years prior to his arrest.
Defendant raises 6 Points in this appeal. In Point I, defendant contends the trial court’s refusal to strike a venireman fоr cause from the jury panel was reversible error. Venireman McNearney stated that he believed he would take a pоlice officer’s testimony over the defendant’s, but would consider the testimony of a police officer and any other lay person fairly equal. Defense counsel did not inquire further of this venireman. After voir dire, defendant’s counsel moved to strike this venireman fоr cause. The trial court offered to permit defense counsel further opportunity to inquire into whether the venireman was in fact biased, but counsel refused. Because of this failure, the defendant cannot now complain that the trial court abused his discretion by failing to strike the venireman. See State v. Williams,
In Point II, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by refusing to sever the charges against him. Defendant was initially charged with 51 felonies. The state filed an order of nolle prosequi as to 20 counts. Without detailing the sordid evidence, the 31 remaining counts dealt with the defendant involving his two children in various deviant sexual acts from June 1979 until on or about March 31, 1981.
Where a defendant is charged with more than one offense, the offenses may be tried jointly or separately, in the discretion of the trial court. Rule 24.07. A denial of a motion to sever will be disturbed only upon a clear showing of abuse of this discretion. State v. Bextermueller,
In Point III, defendant complains of the admission into evidencе of a notebook containing records of defendant’s prostitution business. Defendant alleges the notebook was not relеvant to prove his prostituting his daughter.
On matters of relevancy, the trial court has broad discretion. State v. Wickizer,
In Point IV, defendant asserts he did not receive a fair trial because each of the children, while testifying, referred to the women working for the defendant as prostitutes. There was abundant evidence the women worked for defendant as prostitutes. This fact was well known to the children. The occupation of a person is usually based, in part, upon hearsay. Defendant’s point is denied.
In his fifth point, defendant asserts the warrantless search and seizure of a box containing various photographs violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 15 of the Missouri Constitution. The photo
In October, 1981, while defendant and his wife were separated, defendant brought the box, which was taped shut, to his wife’s house where their son and daughter also lived. Defendant left the box in a closet, knowing that his daughter had knowledge of the whereabouts and contents of the box. After spending several months in prison, defendant again visited his wife’s house, but did not remove the box. Subsequently, defendant’s daughter and wife brought the box to the police and consеnted to its search.
In order to raise a Fourth Amendment challenge, the defendant must show a reasonable expectation of privacy in the object searched. Defendant had no such expectation in the contents of the box. He left the bоx in the exclusive control of his victim. He knew his daughter had knowledge of the contents of the box. Under these circumstances, the defendant assumed the risk that his daughter, the victim, might consent to a search of the box. See Frazier v. Cupp,
In his final point, defendant contends the trial court erred by admitting certain pictures of defendant’s daughter and other womеn in various stages of undress. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of demonstrative evidence, such as photographs. State v. Burnfin,
Judgment affirmed.