Court Opinion

ID: 9654701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:47:47.513483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.672034
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I.
I am not satisfied with the treatment of the issue of chain of custody in the principal opinion. Even if Officer Staples in his testimony claimed that he was able to identify the bullet fragment and to distinguish it from other bullet fragments, this testimony did not satisfy the trial judge. The judge did not admit the fragment into evidence until it was established that it had arrived in California with an unbroken seal. The judge found basis for concluding that the seal was the one placed on the item by Officer Staples, and that the identification was not compromised simply because others had handled the sealed package in the meantime. I find no error in his ultimate conclusion.
I heartily endorse Judge Voorhees’ comment that “it would be much cleaner identification if the missing fellow were here.” Police departments and prosecutors should be very careful to establish a complete chain of custody of items and specimens which cannot be readily identified by eyewitnesses so as to be distinguished from similar items. A jury might not accept proffered evidence if the chain of custody is defective.
II.
Historical research I did in a capital case many years ago demonstrated that the practice of interrogating the jurors about the death penalty and excusing those who said they were unwilling to vote for a sentence of death arose at a time when most felonies were punishable by death. A juror who could not return a death sentence, then, might vote for acquittal even though persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. Compare State v. Nave, 694 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1985) (No. 66379, decided August 7, 1985) and State v. Kenley, 693 S.W.2d 79 (Mo. banc 1985).
*729If the issue were an open one, I would hold that a juror could not be excused for cause simply because he or she expressed unwillingness to return a death verdict. I would allow questioning about attitudes toward the death penalty but would require the prosecution to use its peremptory challenges to exclude those who were opposed to the death sentence.
I do not believe that a juror in a Missouri capital murder case has a duty to consider a death sentence. The law gives each juror unbridled discretion to vote for or against a death sentence.
But this Court has spoken, in the cases cited in the principal opinion and in Judge Greene’s opinion in State v. Nave, supra. We have rejected the rationale of Grigsby v. Mabry, 758 F.2d 226 (8th Cir.1985). I defer to our prior holdings, unless and until the Supreme Court of the United States decrees otherwise.
I concur in the affirmance of the conviction and the sentences.