State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 12 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 35175,35175 |
| Citation | 507 S.W.2d 431 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joe Thomas CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James B. Herd, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., J. Paul Allred, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant-appellant, Joe Thomas Campbell, was found guilty by a jury of exhibiting a dangerous and deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner and the jury assessed punishment at two years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. § 564.610, RSMo., 1969, V.A.M.S. After motion for a new trial was overruled, sentence was imposed on January 26, 1973. Defendant appeals. We reverse and remand.
Defendant, having been indicted on April 20, 1971, was tried in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis before the court and jury beginning November 20, 1972. Defendant had been tried on two previous occasions for the same offense, the first trial resulting in the jury not being able to agree on a verdict, and the second one resulting in a conviction and an assessment of punishment of 50 days, but the post-trial motion for new trial was sustained.
This proceeding followed. What began as a simple case of whether defendant was guilty of exhibiting a dangerous and deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner soon became a complicated, confused and complex trial involving many issues--six of which are raised on this appeal.
Briefly, the facts in the light most favorable to the State, were these. An incident, not involving the defendant or his brother Paul, occurred at a tavern in the City of St. Louis. The incident involved a stealing or robbery by a female patron. Several police officers and two detectives in plain clothes were dispatched to the tavern. After the incident, the owner requested the two plain clothes detectives to remain on the premises. Defendant, Joe Thomas Campbell, and his brother Paul came into the tavern and sat at the bar. Words developed between Paul and certain other customers standing behind him. Thereafter the two brothers left, and shortly thereafter they returned and came through the door. Defendant was carrying, waist high, a 12 gauge Winchester shotgun loaded with one shell; he raised the gun and 'scanned' the bar making, at the same time, certain derogatory remarks to the patrons.
The two detectives identified themselves, took out their service revolvers and attempted to take the gun; defendant lunged the shotgun toward the midsection of one of the officers; a serious altercation followed between the detectives and the two brothers. One of the detectives was injured and the two brothers were more severely injured and hospitalized. The shotgun was never discharged.
Indictment and the trials followed.
Appellant makes six contentions on this appeal. The most serious in our opinion is his contention that the trial court erred in permitting one of the detectives to testify concerning his prior experience in examining a person who has been shot with a shotgun.
The point arose in this manner. The prosecutor requested defense counsel to stipulate that the shotgun was a dangerous and deadly weapon. Counsel approached the bench and objected to the position that such a stipulation would place him in. He further informed the court that in the previous two trials the prosecutor asked the officer whether or not he 'had ever seen anybody shot with a shotgun before . . .' and objected to the development through questioning of the dangerous and deadly nature of the weapon. After lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grant, 38718
...matter of law and that carrying one of those weapons in a concealed manner is a violation of the statute, Id. at 302. In State v. Campbell, 507 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1974), the court held that since a firearm is mentioned in the statute as being dangerous and deadly, no additional proof that d......
-
State v. Hawkins
...nature. In support of his position that the rap lyrics were improperly admitted, Defendant relies on our decision in State v. Campbell, 507 S.W.2d 431 (Mo. App. 1974). We find that case inapposite. In Campbell, the defendant was convicted of exhibiting a dangerous and deadly weapon in a rud......
-
State v. Sheets
...held the trial court properly excluded defendant's proffered testimony of his "hard rais'n." A new trial was granted in State v. Campbell, 507 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1974), because of a witness's descriptive testimony that "the chest cavity was similar to looking into a garbage can full of live......
-
State v. Overshon
... ... --------------- ... 1 'Under § 564.610, certain weapons mentioned therein, e.g. 'firearm' are dangerous or deadly. If the weapon is one mentioned in the statute as being dangerous and deadly, no further proof to show that it is deadly is required or necessary.' State v. Campbell, 507 S.W.2d 431, 433(1--3) (Mo.App.1974). To similar effect see State v. Larkin, 512 S.W.2d 911 (Mo.App.1974). It is immaterial whether the revolver was unloaded, or whether it was otherwise incapable of being discharged if it had the 'appearance and characteristics' of a revolver. State v ... ...