State v. Brown, 11852
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 11852,11852 |
| Citation | 611 S.W.2d 301 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Arlen Bert BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Mark W. Comley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Scott E. Walter, Jackson, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of driving while intoxicated, third offense. § 577.010, RSMo 1978. He was sentenced to one year imprisonment in the county jail.
Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecuting attorney's argument to the jury contained "inflammatory personal epithets" toward him. He also contends that the prosecutor improperly referred to another crime in the argument. No contention is made that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction so we do not recite the evidence. There was substantial evidence of defendant's guilt.
Defendant complains of the following remarks made in the opening portion of the prosecutor's argument:
No objections were made to that argument at the trial. In the closing portion of his argument, the prosecutor said that "drunk drivers kill people and for that reason they're no better than common murderers"; that prison was "appropriate" for defendant because he was "a person who went berserk, who went into a drunken rage" and "went careening down or north up Route N just like he was a kamikaze piolt". Defendant's objection to the comparison of drunk drivers with murderers was sustained. An objection was made to the reference to kamikaze pilots and the jury was instructed to disregard that remark. No other relief was requested. Defendant also complains of the prosecutor stating in that part of the argument:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Scrutchfield, 38032
...to this subsequent comment; thus the matter is not preserved. See, State v. Jordan, 699 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Brown, 611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App.1980). In addition, defendant failed to raise any objection to these comments in his motion for new trial, so the issue can be rev......
-
State v. Slankard, SD22581
...allowed "to not object, gamble on the jury verdict; and if it is adverse, to seek a new trial because of the argument." State v. Brown, 611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App. 1980). While it is true that "[a] prosecutor . . . may not express an opinion implying knowledge of facts unavailable to the j......
-
State v. Slankard
...allowed "to not object, gamble on the jury verdict; and if it is adverse, to seek a new trial because of the argument." State v. Brown, 611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App.1980). While it is true that "[a] prosecutor... may not express an opinion implying knowledge of facts unavailable to the jury,......
-
State v. Fanning
...during the trial. Requests for relief from improper argument must be timely made to preserve them for appellate review. State v. Brown, 611 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Mo.App.1980). By failing to request a mistrial appellant has not preserved his point for review. State v. Ginnery, 617 S.W.2d 117, 120......