(DOWNLOAD) "State Missouri v. Ricky E. Stone" by Western District Court of Appeals of Missouri # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Missouri v. Ricky E. Stone
- Author : Western District Court of Appeals of Missouri
- Release Date : January 25, 1994
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
Ricky Stone was charged by information with forgery, § 570.090.1(4), RSMo 1986, a class C felony. Trial was held
on March 15 and 16, 1993, and a Clay County jury found him guilty as charged. Stone then timely filed a motion for new trial
on the ground of newly discovered evidence. After a series of hearings, the trial court granted Stone's motion, and the State
appeals. We affirm. In its sole point relied on, the State argues the trial court erred in sustaining Stone's motion for new trial based upon
newly discovered evidence because Stone failed to prove he was entitled to such relief. The case involved a forged check (check
number 1061) drawn on an account held by Robert Bears at Clay County Savings and Loan. The new evidence consists of a Forensic
Laboratory Report prepared on March 2, 1993, by the Criminal Laboratory Division of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. It
states that Specimen Q1, which consisted of seventeen checks, including check number 1061, was processed for fingerprints
and submitted to an analyst for evaluation. This examination "revealed latent prints that can be used for identification purposes."
Those prints were then compared against the "Missouri State Highway Patrol 10-print file," which contains the fingerprints
of Missouri felony arrestees. Although Stone had twice been arrested on Missouri felony charges, this search "yielded negative
results." The report also contains the results of a handwriting analysis. After comparing the writing on the seventeen checks
with handwriting exemplars obtained from Stone and a co-defendant, the analyst concluded: "The known exemplars contain a limited
amount of comparable writing features, however, there are indications that [the co-defendant] may have written the questioned
material." 1