Harris v. Williams, 30911
| Decision Date | 18 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 30911,30911 |
| Parties | Gerald HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Fleming WILLIAMS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William P. Byrne, Librach, Heller, Byrne & Weber, St. Louis, for appellant.
Wilbur C. Schwartz, William L. Mason, Jr., Grove G. Sweet, St. Louis, for respondent.
BRADY, Commissioner.
This was an action for personal injuries and damages plaintiff allegedly sustained in an automobile collision occurring on November 10, 1958, at the intersection of Prairie and Page Avenues in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The case was tried in February of 1961 and resulted in an unanimous jury verdict for the defendant. The transcript was filed with this Court in September, 1961 and after resettings upon application of counsel we heard the appeal during our October, 1962 docket. Inasmuch as the issues raised in this appeal do not involve the injuries plaintiff allegedly incurred, the description thereof and of the medical testimony going thereto will not be stated herein. The parties will be referred to by their designation at the trial.
In his first assignment of error, plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff as to addresses he had given to the police on prior occasions, and as the reason therefor he urges that '* * * by virtue of these questions defendant was allowed to bring before the jury the fact that on numerous occasions plaintiff had been arrested; for the further reason that a mere arrest is not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness.' For a second assignment of error, the plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in allowing the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff concerning a statement regarding an address in relation to an arrest. Up to that point, it would seem that his second allegation of error is practically the same as the first, and he even assigns in his second allegation of error '* * * for the reason set forth in Paragraph 1 * * *' but he goes on to allege '* * * and the court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion for mistrial for the reason that the error was before the jury.' The plaintiff sets forth two other allegations of prejudicial error in his brief. A reference to the motion for new trial discloses that such motion does not contain any allegation of error dealing with the trial court's action in allowing defendant's counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff with regard to the facts and circumstances of one of his convictions for burglary, which conviction had been admitted by plaintiff's counsel. Accordingly we will not review the point. Civil Rule 83.13(a), V.A.M.R. Neither do we deem it a point which should be considered under the provisions of Civil Rule 79.04, V.A.M.R. The plaintiff's other assignment of error deals with the giving and reading of Instruction No. 7. Under the disposition made herein of this appeal, it is unnecessary to consider this point. Accordingly the evidentiary matters pertaining to these points are not stated herein.
The plaintiff testified that he lived at 4052 Kennerly in St. Louis City; that the accident occurred on a dry, clear day at about six P.M. or '* * * just after dusk'; that he was a passenger in the car of Mr. Cheatham, who was deceased at date of trial, and who had lived in the same block on Kennerly as his mother and had offered him a ride from his mother's house at 4052 Kennerly to his room at 3869 Cook; that they proceeded in the Cheatham automobile southwardly on Prairie Avenue and stopped at the intersection of that street and Page Avenue for a stop sign which controlled Prairie Avenue traffic; that Cheatham's automobile had a standard transmission and he brought it to a full stop, shifting into first gear; that as they pulled 'over from the curb' he first saw the defendant's automobile proceeding eastwardly on Page; that it was the only automobile then in sight coming from that direction; that the defendant's automobile was then one-half to three-fourths of a block away; that as they got 'about center line of Page' he looked again and saw the defendant's car a 'little less than half a block' away; and that when he saw the automobile 'continuing to the same effect' he remarked to Cheatham 'I think he is going to hit us.' The plaintiff's further testimony and the evidence from pictures he introduced as marked by witnesses showed the Cheatham car to have crossed five of the six lanes of traffic on Page, and the impact to have taken place in the sixth or most southwardly lane of the intersection; that this was the lane in which the defendant was traveling; that the defendant never swerved or sounded his horn or applied his brakes prior to the impact; that Cheatham was proceeding at 15 to 18 miles per hour as he crossed the intersection; that with respect to Cheatham's car, the impact took place at the right front door as shown by Exhibit 4; that the force of the impact turned Cheatham's car around in a northwesterly direction.
The evidence as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wills v. Townes Cadillac-Oldsmobile
...statements, which defendant contends was its sole purpose. Plaintiffs refer us to Cotton v. Pyle, Mo., 400 S.W.2d 72; Harris v. Williams, Mo.App., 363 S.W.2d 51; Character v. Henderson, 1 Ohio App. 14, 195 N.E.2d 821; and Warren v. Hart, 71 Wash.2d 512, 429 P.2d 873, banc, which recognize t......
-
State v. Taylor
...or convictions are admitted, it is reversible error to inquire into a party's or a witness' arrest or arrests'. Harris v. Williams, 363 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Mo.App.1962). In Harris, the objection to the question on arrest was sustained but the trial court failed to instruct the jury to disregard ......
-
Cotton v. Pyle, 51427
...to the state's counsel or to the jury to destroy any injurious effects of such a statement.' (Loc. cit. 76 S.W. 1006.) In Harris v. Williams, Mo.App., 363 S.W.2d 51, 53, plaintiff was cross-examined: 'Q. Do you recall a little matter of being arrested?' Although the objection was sustained ......
-
Carlisle v. Kroger Co., 58198
...is still generally improper to show an arrest against the witness unless it is shown that there has been conviction. Harris v. Williams, 363 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Mo.App.1962); Davis v. Moore, 553 S.W.2d 559, 564 (Mo.App.1979). It is also true that immaterial and incompetent evidence may not be br......