As the two had covered a distance "pretty well down" the 3,161 foot driveway, the son discovered personal items belonging to Julie. The father, accompanied by his son, commenced to search for Julie. on this same date, Julie's father called the bus driver, only to learn Julie had gotten off the bus earlier in the day. A passing motorist observed Julie leave the school bus and proceed to her family's mailbox. The bus had stopped at its regular stop on HH Highway, which was at the entrance to the roadway leading to the Wittmeyer farm. on September 2,1977,14 year-old Julie Wittmeyer got off the Platte RIII school bus. IV, V, VI, VII and XIV.Īt approximately 3:20 p.
#Hesston 1014 two pronged guards with coarse teeth trial
8 (MAI-CR 15.18Manslaughter) because there was no evidence to support said instruction, and the credible evidence fails to support a finding of guilty for manslaughter, and the court erred in not granting appellant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict and as his final alleged error (5) appellant contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying him a new trial for the reason that the cumulative and prejudicial denial of due process resulted from the deliberate failure of the prosecutor to timely fully disclose the evidence ordered disclosed by the trial court and other complaints more fully set out in appellant's motion for new trial contrary to the Mo.Const. m.), allowing the jury to find appellant guilty without proof of the death of the victim during the time specified (4) the trial court erred as a matter of law in giving instruction No. 8 (MAI-CR 15.18 Manslaughter) because this instruction failed to inform the jury with the particular time of death (3:30-5:00 p. 2d 694 (1966) (2) the trial court erred as a matter of law by allowing opinion evidence as to who placed a bite mark upon the body of the deceased because bite mark identification has not reached the point of scientific reliability and credibility to permit the use thereof as evidence in criminal trials, the state's witnesses were not sufficiently qualified as experts in the field to permit of their rendering an opinion as to the identity of the perpetrator of the bite mark and the factual basis for such opinion was not supported by reliable and credible evidence (3) the trial court erred as a matter of law in giving instruction No. On this appeal, the court is faced with five alleged points of error, which in summary are as follows: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law in overruling appellant's *544 motion to suppress evidence of an alleged oral statement of Octoand further, in permitting appellant to be cross-examined about alleged oral statements of October 2 and October 5,1977, and the further use of said statements, because all of said statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. The trial court affixed punishment at ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. This is a direct appeal from a jury conviction for manslaughter. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 9, 1980. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.īefore TURNAGE, P. Brown of Brown & Brown, Kansas City, for appellant. Application to Transfer Denied July 15, 1980. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied June 9, 1980. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.