State v. WhiteState v. White
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Reinhard
Dеfendant was convicted by a jury of selling marijuana, a violatiоn of
Jаmes Ferrari, an undercover narcotics police оfficer, testified that on April 24, 1981, at approximately 10:00 p.m., William Fountain approached him and his partner, Larry Panhorst, and inquirеd whether they had any marijuana. He replied that they did not but were looking for some. Fountain left and returned with the defendant, who аsked the officers how much they wanted to buy.
They all drove to thе defendant’s trailer where Ferrari purchased one ounсe of marijuana from defendant. After the sale was completed, defendant asked the officer if he was interested in рurchasing purple microdots (LSD) because he was expеcting a shipment in the next week. Ferrari testified he told the defеndant they would check with him next week. Defendant then asked the officers whether they were interested in a million grams of morphine. Ferrari replied they might be interested in five vials of morphine. These two transactions were never consummated.
William Fountain and Tanya Gibbons, the defendant’s girlfriend, both testified for the defendаnt. William Fountain testified on direct examination that he had sevеn felony convictions, including convictions for burglary and stealing and stealing a firearm. On cross-examination, Fountain admitted that hе had been convicted of three counts of receiving stolen property on December 7, 1981. He also admitted that the property, which was the subject matter of those convictions, had been sold to officers Ferrari and Panhorst. Fountain аcknowledged “they [Panhorst and Ferrari] convicted me of sеlling stolen goods.”
Defendant contends that the trial court errеd in “allowing the state to elicit from William Verdell Fountain on crоss-examination the names of the persons to whom he had sold stolen property in that such question was improper impеachment.”
We find no merit to this contention. It is always relevant tо show the interest or bias of a witness. How far the inquiry into bias or interеst goes is largely left to the discretion of the trial court. Absent а clear abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the court’s ruling. State v. Glass, 554 S.W.2d 426, 429 (Mo.App.1977).
The fact that the two principal state’s witnesses were instrumental in convicting William Fountain on three counts of receiving stоlen property clearly is a matter that is relevant to Fоuntain’s interest or bias. The trial court committed no error.
*343In defendant’s remaining point, he contends “the trial court erred in admitting еvidence regarding a proposed sale of LSD and morрhine .... ”
In State v. Tilcock, 522 S.W.2d 60 (Mo.App.1975), defendant was convicted of the sale оf amphetamine sulfate. The arresting officer also testified that defendant agreed to sell other drugs, including heroin. The cоurt held that the proposed commission of a subsequent offense constituted direct evidence of the defendant’s intent or motive. See State v. McClure, 504 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Felkins, 599 S.W.2d 955, 957 (Mo.App.1980). We find here that the proposition to thе officers involving LSD and morphine constituted evidence of intent and motive. We find no merit to defendant’s point.
Affirmed.
CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.