STATE OF MISSOURI v. TORRANCE REED

STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD32930
)
TORRANCE REED, ) FILED: September 10, 2014
)
Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY
Honorable Joe Z. Satterfield, Judge
AFFIRMED
Torrance Reed appeals his convictions for robbery and felonious restraint.
The victim died after the preliminary hearing, which was not recorded. At trial, the
prosecutor called witnesses to relate what the victim had said at preliminary hearing.
Reed claims this violated the Confrontation Clause. We affirm the convictions.
Background
Afoot at a friend’s home in Kennett, the victim offered $20 for a ride to his
grandmother’s trailer. He left in a car with two men and a female driver, none of
whom he knew. As they approached the trailer park, one man told the female to
keep driving. They drove on into the country, where the men robbed the victim and
pushed him out of the car. The victim walked to a house and reported the robbery.
Investigation quickly led to arrests and charges against Reed and Brittany Jarrett.
Later, Lavirous Turner also was apprehended and charged.
The only real issue at Reed’s trial was whether he was involved. As Reed’s
lawyer put it in closing argument, the “lynchpin” and “key witness” was Brittany
Jarrett – driver of the car, co-defendant, and mother of Reed’s child. She testified
for the prosecution, corroborated the victim’s account,1 provided further details and
information, identified Reed and Turner as the robbers with her, and stated that
Reed had been with her all that day. In contrast, Reed, a two-time felony offender,
testified that he never left his home that day. It took jurors only 46 minutes to
resolve the credibility contest and find Reed guilty.
Complaint on Appeal / Analysis
As we have noted, the victim died (of unrelated causes) after the preliminary
hearing, which was not recorded. At trial, the prosecutor called two attendees of that
preliminary hearing to describe the victim’s prior testimony. Reed complains that
this procedure violated the Confrontation Clause. We disagree.
The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees an accused’s right
to confront witnesses against him. State v. Turner, 242 S.W.3d 770, 775 (Mo.App.
2008). This means that prior preliminary hearing testimony and other “testimonial”
1The sheriff had interviewed the victim and typed up his statement, which the victim
signed, all within hours after the robbery. The sheriff testified at Reed’s trial and
read the victim’s statement to the jury. Reed does not complain about this evidence
on appeal.
2
proof is inadmissible unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had “a
prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S.
36, 68 (2004). Crawford’s “core principle” renders prior preliminary hearing
testimony admissible only if a defendant had adequate opportunity to cross-
examine. State v. Aaron, 218 S.W.3d 501, 506 (Mo.App. 2007).2
Yet Reed does not contend that he lacked adequate opportunity to cross-
examine any witness at any time, either at preliminary hearing or during trial. This
failure to even suggest some issue or problem with Reed’s opportunity for cross-
examination dooms any Confrontation Clause complaint. We affirm the judgment
and convictions.
DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. – OPINION AUTHOR
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, P.J./C.J. – CONCURS
2Missouri Court Rule 22.09 gives defendants the right to cross-examine preliminary
hearing witnesses, so “it can only be said that Crawford was violated if that
opportunity was inadequate.” Aaron, 218 S.W.3d at 506.
3