City of Kansas City v. Hudson
| Citation | 12 S.W.3d 747 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) City of Kansas City, Missouri, Respondent, v. Orlo K. Hudson, Appellant. WD56405 Handdown Date: 0 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 2000 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Thomas H. Newton
Counsel for Appellant: Melody L. Cockrell
Counsel for Respondent: Kevin L. Jamison
Opinion Summary:
Orlo K. Hudson appeals his conviction of unlawful use of a weapon in violation of the Kansas City, Missouri, Code of General Ordinances, for which he was sentenced to seven days at the Municipal Correctional Institution and fined $300.00.
AFFIRMED.
Held: Because of gross deficiencies in Hudson's brief, the appellate court reviewed the conviction on a "plain error" standard, pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.20. Because the rulings of which Hudson complains are not plainly erroneous, his contentions do not warrant the granting of relief. No issue is presented for review.
Opinion Author: PER CURIAM
Orlo K. Hudson was charged with assault and unlawful exhibition of a weapon in violation of the Kansas City, Missouri Code of General Ordinances, Chapter 50, section 26. The two counts were tried together before a jury on June 1, 1998. Hudson was acquitted on the assault charge and convicted on the charge involving the exhibition of the deadly weapon. Hudson was sentenced to seven days at the Municipal Correctional Institution and fined $300.00.
Orlo K. Hudson, Betty Wilkerson and Lou Conroy were all employed at the Old Chelsea Theater in Kansas City, Missouri. An altercation occurred among the three on September 6, 1997. As a result of the altercation, Hudson was charged with violating two sections of the Kansas City, Missouri Code of General Ordinances: 1) knowingly exhibiting an ice pick readily capable of lethal use in a threatening manner, in lunging at and attempting to stab Conroy; and 2) intentionally inflicting bodily injury upon Wilkerson by kicking her in the back of neck. At a jury trial on June 1, 1998, Hudson was acquitted of the assault on Wilkerson and convicted on the charge involving the exhibition of the deadly weapon against Conroy. He was sentenced to serve seven days at the Municipal Correctional Institution and fined $300.00. He appeals, basing his arguments on the contention that the trial court erred in its rulings with regard to (1) refusing to admit into evidence a security videotape of the incident; and (2) in allowing the prosecutor to refer to the two women as "victims" over his objections.
The trial court is vested with broad discretion to admit and exclude evidence at trial, and error will be found only if the discretion of the court was clearly abused. State v. Clayton, 995 S.W.2d 468, 474 (Mo. banc 1999). We ordinarily review these claims of trial court error as to evidence rulings under an "abuse of discretion" standard. Because of gross deficiencies in appellant's brief, however, we find nothing has been preserved for review. Rule 30.20 states:
Allegations of error that are not briefed or are not properly briefed on appeal shall not be considered by the appellate court except errors respecting the sufficiency of the information or indictment, verdict, judgment, or sentence. . . . (Emphasis added.)
The statement of facts mentions nothing about any security videos, nor about any references at trial to the witnesses as victims, although those items form the substance of the appellant's points. The purpose of the statement of facts is to give the court the facts pertinent to the issues on appeal. Rule 30.06(c) requires the appellant to present, without argument, "facts relevant to the questions presented for determination . . . ."1
The statement of facts is not the only problem. Appellant's points relied on read as follows:
(I) The court erred in excluding the security video from evidence.
(II) The court erred in overruling the defense objection to labeling the complaining...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Myers
...to a complaining witness as a "victim" once, in Cloud v. State , 507 S.W.2d 667 (Mo. App. 1974) ; see also City of Kansas City v. Hudson , 12 S.W.3d 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (dismissing an appeal in which this question arises for violations of mandatory briefing requirements). In Cloud , th......