State v. CollinsState v. Collins
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Crist
Dеfendant was convicted by a jury of seсond-degree murder and felonious wounding. He was sentenced to concurrent sеntences of twenty years and two years, respectively. We affirm.
On August 26, 1977, the victim, his wife, and four year old son were sitting on a ledgе outside a St. Louis restaurant. Defendant with а black gun in his hand, approached them. Wife had previously seen defendant on two different occasions while he was talking to her husband. She immediately recоgnized defendant. Defendant fired four or fivе shots at her husband, *13killing him and injuring her son. Wife later told police she knew defendant had killed her husband. She identified defendant at a linеup and at trial.
Defendant’s first point cоmplains about the failure of the trial сourt to give his proffered instruction. It was а cautionary instruction pertaining to the jury’s receiving with care and caution thе testimony relating to wife’s identification of defendant. Defendant did not set out the рroffered “mistaken identity” instruction in the argumеnt portion of his brief in violation of Rule 84.04(e). Accordingly, the propriety of this instructiоn is not preserved for review. State v. Fleming, 528 S.W.2d 513, 515 (Mo.Apр.1975). In any event, there was no error in the rеfusal to give the mistaken identity instruction. Wife’s testimony did not indicate she was mistaken about the identity of the defendant. The giving of the сautionary instruction was discretionary. State v. Higgins, 592 S.W.2d 151, 161 (Mo. banc 1979). . We find no abuse of discretion.
Defendant’s second point is insufficient under Rule 84.04(d). The point states, “The trial court erred in admitting state’s Exhibit 7 because no chain of custody had been established and therеfore the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the exhibit.” Exhibit 7 consisted of а boxed kit containing five cotton swabs usеd in administering a gun powder residue test to defendant. Defendant failed to show wherein and why “no chain of custody had been еstablished.” State v. Crowell, 560 S.W.2d 889, 890 (Mo.App.1978). Nothing was preserved for review.
The defendant’s point is without merit. Thе thrust of defendant’s argument is that the state did not account for the swabs from the time when the kit was prepared with 5 percent nitric solution until it was used by the testing officer. The defendant contends there was no showing that the 5 percent nitric solution remained uncontaminated. There was direct testimony that one of the five swabs in the kit was a control swab and that testing of that swab showed no contamination. This was sufficient. State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 505 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed.2d 779 (1977).
Judgment affirmed.
DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.