State v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 09 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 43348,43348 |
| Citation | 256 S.W.2d 765 |
| Parties | STATE v. BOYD. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., D. D. Guffey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, the appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and his punishment assessed at death.
In his brief and oral argument in this court appellant makes only two assignments of error. He has, therefore, abandoned all other assignments of error in his motion for a new trial. State v. Johnson, 362 Mo. 833, 245 S.W.2d 43.
Appellant's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in giving instructions 5 and 6 'in that they imposed upon the Defendant a higher degree of proof than the law required.' Instructions 5 and 6 deal with appellant's defense of insanity.
The State contends that appellant's motion for a new trial does not allege any error in the giving of instructions 5 and 6 and, hence, the point is not before us for review. The State's Contention is supported by the record.
Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., provides in part: 'The motion for a new trial shall be in writing and must set forth in detail and with particularity, in separate numbered paragraphs, the specific grounds or causes therefor.' This statute is mandatory. State v. O'Brien, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W.2d 357; State v. Davis, Mo.Sup., 251 S.W.2d 610; State v. Hinojosa, Mo.Sup., 242 S.W.2d 1; State v. Loston, Mo.Sup., 234 S.W.2d 535; State v. Wilson, 361 Mo. 78, 233 S.W.2d 686. Therefore, this assignment is not before us for our review.
Appellant's last assignment of error is that the trial court should not have allowed appellant to be handcuffed and manacled in the courtroom during the trial. We have held that a prisoner on trial is entitled to be brought into court for his trial free from all shackles or bonds unless the conduct of the prisoner during the trial is such that there is some good reason for keeping shackles on the prisoner during his trial. State v. Kring, 64 Mo. 591; State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 228, 92 S.W. 494; State v. Rice, 347 Mo. 812, 149 S.W.2d 347.
The State contends that the appellant is not in a position to raise this assignment of error. Immediately prior to the empaneling of the jury and before the appellant was taken into the courtroom, appellant's attorney appeared in the chambers of the trial judge and asked the court whether or not it was proper for the appellant to be brought into the courtroom handcuffed. The court then asked appellant's attorney if he would be willing to sit next to appellant without his being so restrained, to which his attorney replied that he 'wasn't sure.'
This record shows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Finch
...Hernandez v. Beto, 443 F.2d 634, 636-37 (5th Cir.1971); State v. Crawford, 99 Idaho 87, 95-96, 577 P.2d 1135 (1978); State v. Boyd, 256 S.W.2d 765, 766 (Mo.1953); Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 758, 179 So. 764 (1938); Blair v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 319, 327-29, 188 S.W. 390 Shackling or ha......
-
State v. Johnstone, 47366
...a case where the accused was handcuffed when brought into the presence of the jury. State v. Rice, 347 Mo. 812, 149 S.W.2d 347; State v. Boyd, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 765. There was no showing of misconduct on the part of the deputies. The case falls within the holdings that courts may take the rea......
-
State v. Smith
...question said instruction in his motion for new trial. The issue is not preserved for review. Sup.Ct.R. 27.20 (Sec. 547.030); State v. Boyd, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 765; State v. Wilson, 361 Mo. 78, 233 S.W.2d 686; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362, 80 S.W.2d 865[9, IV. Appellant, invoking the provisio......
-
State v. Borman
...284 (1901); State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 228, 92 S.W. 494, 496 (1906); State v. Temple, 194 Mo. 237, 92 S.W. 869, 872 (1906); State v. Boyd, 256 S.W.2d 765, 766(4) (Mo. banc 1953); State v. McGinnis, 441 S.W.2d 715, 717(1) (Mo.1969); Bibbs v. State, 504 S.W.2d 319, 320(1) (Mo.App.1973); State v......