Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RIPLEY COUNTY Honorable Michael M.
E. SCOTT, J.
Green's crime spree resulted in a jury trial, 13 felony
convictions, and net sentences of life imprisonment plus 75
years. He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence,
but raises four points on appeal, only two of which are
preserved. We deny all points and affirm the judgment of
the record most favorably to the verdicts, State v.
Eoff, 193 S.W.3d 366, 368 (Mo.App. 2006), Green beat on
the Walsh family's door at 2:30 a.m., claiming that his
truck had broken down, his children were with him (it was
winter), and he needed to use a phone. When Mrs. Walsh
cracked the door to hand out her phone, Green forced his way
in, stuck a gun in her face, and demanded her truck keys. Her
daughter screamed, Green fired his gun, and a struggle
ensued, waking Mr. Walsh who ran to his family's aid.
Green kept firing, wounding both parents, and again demanded
truck keys which Mrs. Walsh surrendered. Green took the truck
an hour later, Green knocked at the door of his relative, Mr.
Parsons, again claiming that he needed to make a call because
his truck had broken down. Mr. Parsons admitted Green, who
turned on the TV but called no one, then stepped out and
returned with an assault rifle. When TV news reported that
Green was wanted for a shooting, Green roughed up Mr.
Parsons, bound him with a telephone cord, and fled in Mr.
not detail Green's unlawful entry into Ms. D__'s home
later that day; or his offenses against her person; or his
theft of her credit cards and car in fleeing the scene; or
the manhunt, high-speed police chase, and crash that led to
Green's apprehension and the recovery of evidence that,
coupled with Green's confession, resulted in the charges
for which Green was tried (after a jail escape and recapture)
I Admission of Identification Testimony
charges error in admitting Mrs. Walsh's identification of
him, alleging that the pretrial identification procedure was
reverse on admission of testimony only if the trial court
abused its discretion. Foster v. State, 348 S.W.3d
158, 161 (Mo.App. 2011). We consider evidence at both the
suppression hearing and trial, viewing the record most
favorably to the court's ruling. State v. Green,
469 S.W.3d 881, 883 (Mo.App. 2015).
first consider whether the pretrial identification procedure
was unduly suggestive; i.e., was identification a
product of police procedure, not witness recollection?
Foster, 348 S.W.3d at 161-62. Unless the procedure
was unduly suggestive, our analysis ends. Id. at
record reflects that Mrs. Walsh could and did view Green as
he forced his way into her home and struggled with her. Less
than an hour later, a deputy showed her Green's mugshot
without mentioning his name and asked if she recognized him.
Mrs. Walsh identified Green "without a shadow of a
doubt" as the person who shot her and never wavered in
identifying Green in later court proceedings.
Green's argument consists of highlighting testimony and
inferences that question the reliability of the
identification. Our standard of review forbids us to so view
the record. Moreover, at this stage of the analysis, we are
reviewing whether police procedure was unduly
suggestive, absent which any "factors relating to
reliability of the identification go to ...