State v. Amerison
| Citation | 399 S.W.2d 53 |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 51606,51606,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. L. S. AMERISON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles C. Hatley, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Madrid, for respoondent.
William B. Spaun, Hannibal, for appellant.
Appellant, L. S. Amerison, was convicted of first-degree robbery under Sec. 560.120 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., by a jury in the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas, at Hannibal, Missouri, and his punishment under the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, Sec. 556.280 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. (as amended Laws 1959, S.B. 117), was assessed at imprisonment in the custody of the State Department of Corrections for a term of twenty years. Jurisdiction was in the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas because the offense was alleged to have been committed in Mason Township, County of Marion, Missouri. Section 480.200 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Following rendition of judgment and imposition of sentence an appeal was perfected to this Court.
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence. However, a brief summary is in order. According to the evidence, on October 18, 1961, between 11:00 and 11:15 p. m., two men entered Foley's Drive-In Package Liquor Store, 922 Mark Twain Avenue, Hannibal, Missouri. Mrs. Loretta Wingfield, co-owner of the store, had just completed counting the day's receipts. According to Mrs. Wingfield, appellant started to use the telephone book and then shoved a gun in her stomach and ordered her into the rest room. He searched her for money in the rest room and she told him the money was in the cash register. He then left her and she could hear money being dumped into cloth. Appellant walked back to the rest room and told her to stay in there and keep still. He and his companion then left. After about a minute, Mrs. Wingfield returned to the cash register, found the money gone, except for a few pennies, and called the police. Mrs. Wingfield identified appellant in the courtroom at the trial as the man who robbed her. It is evident that the evidence was ample to sustain the conviction.
Appellant contends that he was not brought to trial in a timely manner, and should have been discharged under the provisions of Sec. 545.890 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Appellant was arraigned April 13, 1964, and the case was set for trial November 16, 1964, the first date available. Later, the trial court being advised that appellant had not employed an attorney to represent him, the trial of the case was continued and reset for January 12, 1965. On January 7, 1965, the trial court appointed counsel to represent appellant. On January 12, 1965, counsel for appellant requested a continuance in order to have time to prepare. The case was set for trial May 24, 1965, and trial was had beginning on said date. What constitutes laches within the meaning of Sec. 545.890 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., was construed in State v. Nelson, Mo.Sup., 279 S.W. 401, at 403, to be the failure of the State to justly afford the accused 'such a speedy hearing and determination of the charge against him as is accorded by the Constitution.' We have examined the various entries of the trial court's orders on continuances in this case and they do not sustain appellant's contention. Appellant was not entitled to be discharged.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not granting him a continuance because of a newscast on the local radio station which appellant alleges deprived him of a fair and impartial trial. In his application for continuance, appellant stated: 'That on the 21st day of May, 1965, just several days before the trial of this cause, one, Sam Dindia, a Police Sergeant of the City of Hannibal, in a very popular news broadcast here in Hannibal and in this area for many people, voluntarily stated over said Radio Station KHMO, which is heard by many people in this community, that the Sheriff, or in words and substance, that the Sheriff of Marion County, Missouri, had brought a very large visitor to their jail from Jefferson City, you know the one who subpoenaed Sonny Liston for his trial next Monday, which fell through; he is a very big man and we are considering keeping a very close watch on him because he is dangerous.' We cannot convict the trial court of prejudicial error for failure to grant a continuance under these circumstances. * * *' 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 497, pp. 157-158; State v. Golden, 353 Mo. 585, 183 S.W.2d 109, cert. den. 324 U.S. 874, 65 S.Ct. 1013, 89 L.Ed. 1427; State v. Engberg, Mo.Sup., 377 S.W.2d 282. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance.
Appellant alleges that he should have been granted a new trial because of a news broadcast at noon on the date of trial, 'which said broadcast over Radio Station KHMO could have been heard by all jurors.' We need not rule on the question of alleged prejudice here. Appellant failed to show that any member of the jury heard the broadcast prior to the rendition of the verdict. State v. Darrow, Mo.Sup., 104 S.W.2d 249, 251-252; State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 83 S.W.2d 98, 104.
Appellant, a Negro, alleges that Negroes were systematically excluded from the jury panel and he was denied a fair and impartial trial. The record does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...Mo. 1164, 111 S.W.2d 110; State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720, 197 S.W.2d 949, 952; State v. Brownridge, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 715, 717; State v. Amerison, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 53, 56. Other cases considering alleged exclusion of women are: State v. Taylor, 356 Mo. 1216, 205 S.W.2d 734, 738; State v. Ready, ......
-
State v. Morton
... ... The facts and circumstances in evidence do not support the contention. State v. Keeny, Mo., 431 S.W.2d 95, 98(8); State v. Quinn, Mo., 405 S.W.2d 895, 898(5); State v. Amerison, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 53, 54(2, 3); State v. Malone, Mo., 301 S.W.2d 750, 755(1); State v. Hadley, Mo., 249 S.W.2d 857, 861--862(7). 'The guarantee of a speedy trial means that the defendant must be brought to trial within a reasonable time after he is charged with a crime by indictment or information ... ...
-
State v. Davis
...of the attacks. United States v. Forest, D.C., 118 F.Supp. 504. The burden to sustain his claims was on the appellant (State v. Amerison, Mo., 399 S.W.2d 53, 56) and his counsel's mere oral assertions are wholly insufficient for that purpose. State v. Mooring, Mo., 445 S.W.2d 303, 305; Stat......
-
Gross v. State
...252, 377 P.2d 919; State v. Hodge (1966), 153 Conn. 564, 219 A.2d 367; El-Masri v. State (1962), 228 Md. 114, 178 A.2d 407; State v. Amerison (Mo.1966), 399 S.W.2d 53. The State contends that since the delay is chargeable to appellant the fifty days should start to run anew from the date on......