641 S.W.2d 826 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1982
Defendant appeals from a conviction of robbery in the first degree in violation of § 569.020, RSMo.1978. The jury assessed his punishment at 15 years’ imprisonment; however, the court found defendant to be a persistent offender and sentenced him to a term of 21 years.
On January 28, 1981, between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., Harvey Fields, a truck driver
In one of his points, defendant contends the court erred in allowing testimony concerning the pretrial confrontation of victim Fields with the defendant. We find no error in the trial court’s admitting the evidence. In determining whether a pretrial confrontation is proper, several factors are to be considered, including the proximity of victim and attackers, the victim’s degree of attention, the length of time between the attack and the identification, the accuracy of the initial description, the level of certainty in the identification, and whether the arresting police officers made any suggestive remarks or motions. State v. French, 528 S.W.2d 170, 172-73 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Carter, 571 S.W.2d 779, 782 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Gay, 523 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Mo.App.1975).
The defendant argues that the groggy state of the victim prevented an accurate, proper pretrial identification. The record clearly shows that Fields gave an accurate, though general, description of the attackers and that the arrest and confrontation took place within thirty minutes of the attack. Fields remembered the defendant’s face from the meeting around the fire and from the moments just before the attacker struck him. The police made no suggestive remarks, and the identification was made with certainty upon presentation of the defendant to Fields. We find no error in the court’s admitting the testimony regarding the pretrial identification.
Defendant’s other points concern the admissibility of evidence relating to his torn trousers and relating to the blood tests. His contentions to the effect that there was not a proper foundation laid for admission of the blood tests is clearly without merit. They go not to the admissibility of the evidence but to its weight, and the weight to be accorded evidence is for the jury to determine. State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 493, 501 (Mo.App.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 934, 97 S.Ct. 1558, 51 L.Ed. 779 (1977). Similarly, defendant’s contention that the testimony of the expert should have been excluded is also meritless. Determining an expert’s qualifications to express an opinion is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, Id., at 502, and we find no abuse here.
Finally we find to be without merit defendant’s allegation that the court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's torn trousers and of the blood tests because the state failed to comply with defendant’s mo
Affirmed.