State v. Cook
| Decision Date | 01 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 7804,7804 |
| Citation | 333 S.W.2d 337 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles Frank COOK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ralph M. Crow, Rolla, for appellant.
Jay V. White, Pros. Atty., Rolla, for respondent.
On November 21, 1958, the Prosecuting Attorney of Phelps County, Missouri, filed his first amended information in the Circuit Court of said county, charging defendant, Charles Frank Cook, with a misdemeanor, to-wit: violating the Motor Vehicle Laws, section 301.130 RSMo 1949 as amended, V.A.M.S. The cause was tried by jury and a verdict returned finding defendant guilty and assessing his punishment at a fine of $25.00. From a judgment on the verdict defendant appealed.
The amended information reads as follows: 'Jay White, Prosecuting Attorney, within and for the County of Phelps and State of Missouri, upon his official oath of office as such, and upon his information and belief, informs the Court that at and in the County of Phelps and State of Missouri, on or about the 9th day of November, 1956, the defendant, Charles Frank Cook, then and there being, did then and there wilfully, and unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit: 1951 Cadillac Sedan, over and upon Highway 66 without having displayed the license plates or temporary permit issued by the Director of Revenue in that said motor vehicle carried a dealer's license plate other than the defendant's Charles Frank Cook, Dealer's license plate, without lawful authorization by law; * * *'.
A motion to quash the information was filed by the defendant. The reasons assigned for said motion were: that the information does not charge an offense; that it does not properly advise defendant of the accusation against him; that it does not contain clear and distinct averments rendering it difficult to determine what evidence would be admissible; that it does not fully inform defendant of the offense, if any, of which he stands charged. The motion to quash was, by the court, overruled and the cause tried November 21, 1958.
The facts are that: Appellant, a licensed automobile dealer of Rolla, Missouri, did on November 9, 1956, purchase from Burrell Motor Company, operators of the Cadillac Agency in Rolla, a 1951 Cadillac automobile and took assignment of title of said car and paid for same; that on that day defendant was arrested by the State Highway Patrol while driving the Cadillac in Phelps County on U. S. Highway 66. At the time of the arrest the Cadillac car had displayed on it a dealer's license plate belonging to Rudie's Auto Sales, an automobile agency in Rolla. At the time of the purchase of the car, appellant did not get a written statement or permit from the seller to use the dealer's license plate nor did he deposit with the seller $10.50 as required by law. He was a registered dealer and had the right to use his dealer's license plates but did not do so.
The jury returned into court the following verdict:
'We, the jury, find the defendant, Charles Frank Cook, guilty, as charged, and assess his punishment at a fine of twenty-five dollars.
'/s/ J. M. Vance, Foreman.'
Notice of appeal and abstract of the record have been filed in this court but appellant filed no brief. Under the law we have a duty to examine the matters raised in appellant's motion for new trial where no brief is filed. State v. Missey, Mo.Sup., 234 S.W.2d 777, 780.
It has been a mandatory requirement of statute, section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., and now Supreme Court Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S., that the motion for new trial 'must set forth in detail and with particularity', the specific grounds or causes therefor. State v. Sheard, Mo.Sup., 276 S.W.2d 191, 192[1, 2]; State v. Gaddy, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 65; State v. Burks, Mo.Sup., 257 S.W.2d 919.
Appellant's motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McNeal, 36711
...without making known his objections prior to trial, he cannot complain of error, if any, in that respect on appeal. State v. Cook, 333 S.W.2d 337, 340(7) (Mo.App.1960), State v. Maxie, 513 S.W.2d 338, 340(1) (Mo.1974). Furthermore, the appellant utterly fails to show how he was prejudiced b......
-
State v. Patton
...we must, nevertheless, examine the matters raised in his motion for new trial. State v. Missey, Mo., 234 S.W.2d 777, 780; State v. Cook, Mo.App., 333 S.W.2d 337, 339. In the motion for new trial two assignments of error are made. First, that the State failed to produce any evidence that def......