State v. Bryant, KCD
Decision Date | 28 February 1977 |
Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
Citation | 548 S.W.2d 209 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert Kenneth BRYANT, Appellant. 27775. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert D. Kingsland, Asst. Public Defender, Jefferson City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Nanette Laughrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P. J., WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Appeal from convictions by a jury of robbery, first degree, and assault with intent to kill with malice aforethought. The question is whether, as plain error, Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R., the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial by the State's argument to the jury. Affirmed.
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction. The record shows that on April 29, 1974, defendant and two companions, 1 armed with pistols and shotguns, robbed the First Bank of Commerce, Columbia, Missouri, of some $22,000 by putting four women employees in fear of immediate injury to their persons, Sections 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1969; and, in their attempt to escape and avoid arrest, discharged a shotgun at Harold Calvin, a police officer, and wounded a bystander, Section 559.180, RSMo 1969.
Appellant quotes the following excerpts from the State's closing argument. The emphases are appellant's; additional context is contained in parentheses.
Defendant made an answering argument calculated to raise doubts with respect to the victims' identifications of their assailants and, in furtherance of his trial strategy, to put the police and their work on trial.
Conceding absence of any objection 2 to the State's argument, appellant contends the "doctrine of plain error" should be invoked to cause this case to be remanded for new trial on the ground the State's argument to the jury "which was calculated to influence and arouse the personal passions, hostilities, prejudices and fears of the jury," denied defendant the fair and impartial trial to which he was entitled under the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, and the Missouri Constitution, Article 1, Section 9.
Appellant argues that the comment "give him the shotgun and send him back on the street," "personalizes the jury" in that they might feel personally threatened. He asserts there was no evidence that he meant to kill Officer Calvin, "in that not only was he not hit, but neither was his vehicle"; and no evidence to support the comments that "They were shooting all over the place, and there were bullets and shells, * * * I don't think that was meant to scare anybody."
In an attempt to cover the absence of objections, appellant asserts also that the quoted portions of argument had a "cumulative" inflammatory effect.
Under Rule 27.20(c), supr...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Newlon
...was lodged, trial strategy is an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explication. State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Mo.App.1977). This because the absence of objection, request for admonishment to disregard, or for other relief narrows the trial cour......
-
State v. Strubberg, 62104
...456 (Mo.1972); State v. Umfleet, 587 S.W.2d 612, 616 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Rauch, 583 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Wendell, 547 S.W.2d 807, 820 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Sanders, 541 S.W.2d 782, 784 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Brown......
-
State v. Ellis
...was lodged, trial strategy is an important consideration and such assertions are generally denied without explication. State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Mo.App.1977). This because the absence of objection, request for admonishment to disregard, or for other relief narrows the trial cour......
-
State v. Clemmons
...relief on assertions of plain error as to closing argument. See State v. Johnson, 615 S.W.2d 534, 540 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Bryant, 548 S.W.2d 209, 211 (Mo.App.1977). This is because, in the absence of objection and request for relief, the trial court's options are narrowed to uninvited i......