(Download) "State Missouri v. Richard D. Wakefield" by Southern District, Division 3 Missouri Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Missouri v. Richard D. Wakefield
- Author : Southern District, Division 3 Missouri Court of Appeals
- Release Date : January 16, 1985
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
This case is a companion to State v. Wakefield, 682 S.W.2d 136 (Mo.App. 1984). The same order of criminal activity is involved. The two records before us indicate that at least nine distinct criminal charges were filed against the defendant as a result of the Missouri State Highway Patrol's investigation of the defendant's trafficking in stolen motor vehicles and parts thereof during the period from November 20, 1980, to April 27, 1981. By order dated November 3, 1982, the Circuit Court of Reynolds County consolidated all the pending prosecutions into two distinct cases, ""for trial and for all actions from this point forward."" (Emphasis ours.) In this case, which was tried before the reported companion case, the State filed a six-count information charging defendant with: 1) disposing of parts of a stolen 1979 GMC pickup truck in violation of § 570.080, RSMo 1978; 1 2) removing or defacing the manufacturer's identification numbers on a 1979 GMC pickup in violation of § 302.400; 3) disposing of parts of a 1979 Jeep CJ7 in violation of § 570.080; 4) commission of forgery in violation of § 570.090.1(3) by altering the vehicle identification number on the body of a 1979 Jeep CJ7 so that the vehicle purported to have an ownership it did not possess; 5) receiving or retaining a stolen 1979 Ford Thunderbird in violation of § 570.080, and 6) removing or defacing the manufacturer's identification number on a 1979 Ford Thunderbird in violation of § 301.400. The cause came on for hearing on November 16, 1982. A jury panel appeared and the trial court read MAI-CR.2d 1.02, omitting any reference to the offense charged in Count VI of the information. The voir dire examination was conducted. The panel was admonished, challenges for cause were considered and ruled on by the court, and the following proceeding then took place: