State v. Conner, 51074
| Decision Date | 14 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 51074,51074,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent. v. Glen CONNER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Floyd L. Sperry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Clinton, for respondent.
Michael D. Konomos, Kansas City, for appellant.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree. Sec. 559.010. (Statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.) Trial was to a jury which resulted in a verdict of guilt of murder in the second degree, Sec. 559.020, and the jury assessed defendant's punishment at 18 years' imprisonment. After motion for new trial, which was overruled, allocution, sentence and judgment in accordance with the verdict followed.
No challenge is made upon this appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. Rather, defendant urges error (Point I) in the court's failure to exercise his discretion to allow the jury, at its request while deliberating, to examine the shotgun in evidence; (Point II) error in failing to discharge the jury, 'with or without motion' by defendant, after unwarranted, prejudicial and inflammatory argument of special counsel for the state; and (Point III) error 'in admitting obvious hearsay evidence on behalf of the state and refusing to admit competent evidence on behalf of appellant.'
The homicide in this case was preceded by an altercation between defendant and deceased (Phillip Harold Klebenstein), who were brothers-in-law, good friends, and who worked together sanding walls on the day of the homicide. After they returned from their work on the evening of November 2, 1963, they sat around deceased's home in Shannon County, Missouri, drinking beer and talking for about an hour. Defendant then left with his wife and son in deceased's pickup truck. Later, defendant's mother came to deceased's home and stated that defendant was kicking the door down. Shortly thereafter, defendant came to the door and said something about his mother not letting Carol (defendant's wife) do any work around the house. Defendant then started hitting a 'what-not' partition, and deceased told him not to do it. Defendant 'swung' at deceased, and they began wrestling. Defendant said 'he had enough' and they desisted for a short time, then they started fighting again. Deceased knocked defendant down and said, 'Glen, haven't you had enough?' Defendant said, Defendant 'just got up and left.'
Later, defendant stepped into the kitchen door with the gun creadled in his arm with the muzzle pointed down, and said, 'I came back to show you I'm not afraid.' He walked to an entranceway and deceased said to defendant: 'Don't do something you'll be sorry for the rest of your life.' Deceased was sitting in a chair with a baby, which was taken by his wife after deceased 'raised up.' His wife walked over to the door, and said, 'Oh, no, Glen, don't.' She heard the blast, turned around and saw defendant standing there with the gun cradled in his arm. She saw deceased falling, and ran outside and told her mother to call the doctor and an ambulance. Deceased died on the way to the hospital, having been shot in the groin from about two and a half to three feet away.
Sheriff Hubert Wright was called to investigate the shooting. Defendant told him, The sheriff found the single barrel shotgun with an expended shell in the chamber (State's Exhibits I and H) in the attic of deceased's residence where deceased's wife had thrown it after the shooting. Defendant identified the gun as being the one he had used. The gun was checked as to the condition of the hammer spring; it was in good working order; but it was easily fired by cocking the hammer and trying the mechanism. The shotgun, on several previous occasions, had discharged accidentally, and was twelve years or more old.
Defendant testified that he remembered little of the incident in question. He did remember having the shotgun in his hand in deceased's home, and that deceased was lying on the floor bleeding. Defendant's defense, submitted to the jury in Instruction No. 4-A, was that the shooting was an accident.
With respect to Point I, above, the transcript on appeal shows that on May 29, 1964, while it was in deliberation on the case, the jury, through the Court Bailiff, Dale Chambers, asked the court if they could see the gun. Nothing further appears upon the record at this point, but upon arguments on motion for new trial, where the matter was presented to the court, the omission from the record was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M & A Elec. Power Co-op. v. True
... ... as to the financial status of the parties is as improper in eminent domain proceedings (State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Turk, Mo., 366 S.W.2d 420, 423(6); annotation 21 A.L.R.3d 936) ... ...
-
State v. Foster
...to comply with Rule 84.04. State v. Freeman, 489 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.App.1973); State v. Robbins, 455 S.W.2d 24 (Mo.App.1970); State v. Conner, 391 S.W.2d 335 (Mo.1965). Points IV, V, VI, and X, asserted by defendant fail to comply with Rule 84.04(d), which requires that the points relied on '. ......
-
State v. Robbins
...83.05(a)(3) and (e), V.A.M.R. (made applicable in criminal cases by Rule 28.18, Rules of Criminal Procedure, V.A.M.R.; State v. Conner, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 335, 337--338), because they do not state 'why it is contended' the court erred in admitting the testimony of the designated witnesses or '......
-
State v. Warren
...455 S.W.2d 24, 27--28(11). Civil Rules 83.05(a)(3) and (e) are made applicable to criminal cases by Crim. Rule 28.18 (State v. Conner, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 335, 337--338), and the 'point' in defendant's brief does neither honor to the rules nor preserves anything for review because it does not s......