State v. Cox, 47524
| Decision Date | 08 February 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 47524,47524,1 |
| Citation | 333 S.W.2d 46 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Eugene COX, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
O. R. Newcomer, St. Joseph, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., James E. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Charles Eugene Cox was tried and convicted of a felonious assault with intent to produce great bodily harm. His punishment was assessed at 'Two (2) years in the Dept. of Corrections.' A motion for new trial was overruled whereupon the trial court sentenced the defendant to 'be confined in the Department of Corrections, for the State of Missouri, for and during a period of Two (2) years, for the crime of Felonious Assault.' Defendant appealed to this court.
We shall refer to the points briefed by the defendant in the course of the opinion.
The evidence justifies the following statement: David Kent, the victim of the assault, was at the time of trial attending the University of Missouri. In March, 1958, he was attending a junior college in St. Joseph, Missouri. He worked part time for a newspaper (The Gazette) and on the morning of March 22, 1958, at about one o'clock, he left the office of The Gazette and went to a party at the Chamber of Commerce Building. After spending some time there, he started to drive home in a 1957 Chevrolet. While driving east on Edmond Street, Kent stopped at Seventh Street for a red stop light. While at Seventh Street, Kent saw three boys in a car. Kent stated the boys kept looking at him and looked like tough characters so he locked the doors of his car. Kent drove on when the green light came on and proceeded to Eleventh Street and Mitchell where he stopped again for a red stop light. While in that position, the car containing the three boys that Kent had seen previously at Seventh and again at Ninth Street struck Kent's car from the rear. Kent described what occurred as follows:
Kent further testified that he saw the defendant get out of his car after it struck his (Kent's) car and saw him get back into the car after the assault; that defendant Cox was the driver; that there were three boys present at the time of the assault. He identified defendant Cox, Charles Van Gordon, and Thomas Stufflebean as the three boys who were there when the assault took place.
After the boys left, Kent discovered that the left rear window of his car had been shattered. The three boys were arrested later on the same night. They were together in a car being driven at the time by the defendant. The police found a kitchen knife, a short lead pipe, and a hand tire pump in the car. A base of a tire pump which fitted the pump found in the boys' car was found in Kent's car.
A number of persons who came from the Mary Ann Cafe while the trouble was in progress testified for the State. Kenneth Smith, one of these witnesses, testified to the following facts:
The above evidence was corroborated by a number of other witnesses.
Defendant denied that he participated in the assault, but admitted that his car came into contact with Kent's car. He explained this by saying the brakes of his car failed to hold.
We are of the opinion that the evidence justified a finding that defendant Cox actively participated in the assault. If the defendant's car accidently came in contact with Kent's car and no mischief was intended, the question may be asked, why did the defendant and his two companions immediately after the collision get out of their car with a lead pipe and a tire pump and assault Kent? Kent had not stepped out of his car. In fact, the evidence justifies a finding that the three pulled Kent from his car and without any provocation committed the assault. The evidence was ample to justify the verdict of the jury. This disposes of defendant's assignment of error wherein he claims that the evidence was insufficient and entirely circumstantial.
The defendant offered evidence tending to prove good character. When one of these witnesses, W. H. White, had testified that defendant's reputation in the community was good, the prosecutor cross-examined the witness and the following occurred:
The prosecutor, out of the hearing of the jury, then informed the court that he asked the question in good faith and that the defendant had been apprehended four or five times; that Sergeant W. E. Wilson of the State Patrol had arrested the defendant for siphoning gas out of a car on Garfield Avenue. The court, nevertheless, did not permit further cross-examination on that subject. The ruling of the court was erroneous, but the error was favorable to the defendant and against the State. A witness who has given evidence as to good character may be cross-examined as to rumors concerning the character of the person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Selle
...(not remote or ancient) which would reflect upon defendant's character. State v. Livers, Mo., 340 S.W.2d 21, 26(6); State v. Cox, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 46, 49(2); State v. Cooper, Mo., 271 S.W. 471, 473-474(2-4). However, it should be kept in mind that such cross-examination is permitted to test ......
-
State v. Leimer, 8300
...on which convictions were affirmed in Felds, supra, 366 S.W.2d loc. cit. 468; McCarthy, supra, 336 S.W.2d loc. cit. 417; State v. Cox, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 46, 50; Lorts, supra, 269 S.W.2d loc. cit. 92; State v. Rutledge, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 625; Birkner, supra, note 9; Dimmick, supra, 53 S.W.2d loc......
-
State v. Goodman
...the court did not err in failing to give such an instruction. State v. Kern, 447 S.W.2d 571, 579(17) (Mo. 1969); State v. Cox, 333 S.W.2d 46, 50(5) (Mo. 1960); State v. Burns, 328 S.W.2d 711 (Mo.1959); State v. Parrish, 214 S.W.2d 558 (Mo.1948); State v. Curtner, 262 Mo. 214, 170 S.W. 1141,......
-
State v. Quinn
...circumstances, of affirmatively showing that the jurors were not improperly influenced. This burcen was not sustained. Cf. State v. Cox, Mo.Sup., 333 S.W.2d 46, 50. On this record, the case must be reversed and remanded for new trial. Appellant raises other questions which must be considere......