Brown v. Jones Store
| Decision Date | 05 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 493 S.W.2d 39 |
| Parties | Mildrew Gean BROWN, a minor, by Beulah Mae Duncan, Mother and Next Friend, Appellant, v. The JONES STORE, a corporation, and Charles Sartain, an individual, Respondents. 26111. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Colbert, Kansas City, for appellant.
A. Warren Francis, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before SWOFFORD, P.J., and SHANGLER and WASSERSTROM, JJ.
Plaintiff brought her petition in two counts, for false arrest and for malicious prosecution, against the defendant The Jones Store and Charles Sartain, security officer for the defendant department store. Judgment was entered upon the jury verdict in favor of the defendants on both counts and the plaintiff appeals.
A brief re sume of the evidence only is needed to bring into relief the allegations of error made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was observed by the defendant security officer coming alone into the coat department of the store carrying a sack. In the presence of a saleswoman, she removed a coat from a circular display rack and put it on. The saleswoman left to answer a telephone located behind a wall nearby. The plaintiff glanced in the direction of the telephone to which the saleswoman had gone, reached for her bag and coin purse from atop the circular rack where she had placed them, and left with the display coat still on. The plaintiff then moved towards the elevator in frantic haste, found the doors closed, then went through the dress department to the down escalator, an unspecified distance away, yanking the tags from the right sleeve of the coat as she did. The abbreviated transcript contains no further narrative of the evidence, either as to the acts of false arrest or the malicious prosecution alleged, but no more is needed to determine the questions presented on this appeal.
The plaintiff first complains that the trial court improperly received into evidence three photographic exhibits of the interior of the defendant The Jones Store depicting display racks, the coat department and the locus of the down elevator because there was no showing the photographs were fair and accurate representations of the objects as they appeared at the occurrence in dispute. Specifically, plaintiff contends that since one of the principal issues litigated was the distance from the coat department to the down escalator, and since it was shown by the defendants' testimony that the display racks were movable, the photographic exhibits which undertook to fix these objects in relation to each other could not be received without a showing that the photographs depicted reasonable appearances of the physical arrangement existing at the time of the events in issue.
When the defendants first tendered these photographs as exhibits, the trial court excluded them as evidence, in the absence of further qualification, upon objection made by the plaintiff that a foundation had not been laid as to when the photographs were taken, who took them, and 'whether or not there had been any material change in the layout' during the intervening year. The defendants went on to make a showing that the physical structure depicted in the photographs was the same and that the only thing that had changed was the merchandise on the racks and thereupon reoffered the three exhibits. They were received in evidence by the court without further objection from the plaintiff. These photographs were thereafter used extensively by both counsel in further examination of the witness, defendant Sartain. The contention the plaintiff now makes that the exhibits were not fully qualified as lawful evidence was waived by her failure to raise it by a timely objection, with stated grounds and an appropriate request for relief, at the time the photographs were reoffered. A reviewing court will not consider objections to evidence raised for the first time on appeal and will not convict the trial court of an error it was given no opportunity to correct. Stahlheber v. American Cyanamid Company, Mo., 451 S.W.2d 48, 61(7); Stafford v. Lyon, Mo., 413 S.W.2d 495, 498(3).
The plaintiff submitted against both defendants two theories of recovery, false arrest by Instruction No. 2 and malicious prosecution by Instruction No. 5. The defendants joined in submitting Instruction No. 3 which conversed the false arrest submission and Instruction No. 6 which conversed the malicious prosecution submission. The plaintiff contends that MAI does not authorize such a dual converse submission but rather, citing Nugent v. Hamilton & Sons, Inc., Mo., 417 S.W.2d 939, 941(2), that 'only one converse instruction may be given for each verdict directing instruction'. The corollary of this rule of MAI, however, is the further direction found in Notes on Use, Converse Instructions, MAI 33.02 (Second Edition) p. 356:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Mutert, 41455
... ... On December 3, 1974, Anderson sought medical treatment from his family doctor, James E. Jones, an osteopath. He diagnosed the injury as acute cervical strain. Anderson received physical ... Demko v. H & H Investment Co., 527 S.W.2d 382, 388(7) (Mo.App.1975); Brown v. Jones Store, 493 S.W.2d 39, 42(6-7) (Mo.App.1973); Royal Indemnity Co. v. Schneider, 485 S.W.2d ... ...
-
Ulmer v. Associated Dry Goods Corp., 86-2292
...for the jury to decide. See Hoene, 487 S.W.2d at 484; Randol, 49 S.W.2d at 114. The district court's reliance upon Brown v. Jones Store, 493 S.W.2d 39 (Mo.App.1973), for its ruling excluding evidence related to Ulmer's arrest was misplaced. In that case, the court held that the submission o......
-
Barber v. M. F. A. Milling Co.
...after the alleged occurrence was waived by its failure to object thereto upon any grounds or the ground now stated. Brown v. Jones Store, 493 S.W.2d 39, 41(2) (Mo.App.1973). Defendant's final point, like its first point, does not comply with Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R. Point IV says 'The trial ......
-
Veal v. Kelam
...error it was given no opportunity to correct." State v. McClanahan , 202 S.W.3d 64, 70 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (citing Brown v. Jones Store , 493 S.W.2d 39, 41 (Mo. App. 1973) ). Appellant concedes she did not object to the trial court's statements during voir dire she now challenges. However,......