State v. Crider
| Decision Date | 09 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 52482,No. 1,52482,1 |
| Citation | 419 S.W.2d 13 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fred Leonard CRIDER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles G. Hyler, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Farmington, for respondent.
Jay White, Rolla, for appellant.
Defendant was charged with armed robbery with one previous felony conviction, convicted bty the jury, sentenced by the court to thirty years' imprisonment, and appeals. Defendant is represented here by appointed counsel, who has briefed and argued the case. Defendant admitted the prior conviction, etc., in the hearing before the court on this aspect of the charge and no contention is made that the state failed to make a case for the jury on the armed robbery charge. There is evidence in the record from which the jury could find that defendant was one of two men who held up a farmer, in his bedroom, at night, at the point of a shotgun which they jabbed into his stomach, and made off with $27 and his watch, automobile, and car title.
Defendant claims error first in that he was not allowed twenty peremptory challenges (we take this to mean twelve, since the case was not tried in a city of more than 100,000 inhabitants, Sec. 546.180, subd. 2(1) 1) inasmuch as death could result from the conviction, Sec. 560.135. However, the state, prior to voir dire, expressly waived the death penalty, as it may legally do and hence, defendant could only have received a sentence of from five years to life imprisonment, State v. Redding, (Mo.Sup.) 357 S.W.2d 103, and State v. Garrett, (Mo.Sup.) 282 S.W.2d 441. Defendant was therefore entitled only to eight peremptory challenges and a qualified panel of twenty-four jurors was sufficient, Sec. 546.180, subd. 1(2). Defendant contends the prosecuting attorney should not be allowed to waive the death penalty and thus limit to that extent the power of the court to determine the punishment under the habitual criminal statute, Sec. 556.280, but cites no authority in support of this proposition and we fail to see how defendant could have been prejudiced by elimination of a possible death sentence. We accordingly overrule defendant's first contention.
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in denying defendant's request for the rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom, but it has frequently been held this is not a matter of right of the defendant and rests in the sound discretion of the court, State v. Foster, (Mo.Sup.) 349 S.W.2d 922, 923, and State v. Lord, (Mo.Sup.) 286 S.W.2d 737, 741. There is no showing of any abuse of discretion or any harm to defendant, and this contention is also overruled.
Defendant next contends there was prejudicial error in the closing argument of the prosecutor. In the cross-examination of state's witness Mitchell as to how he and defendant got along, the witness said, 'Fair'. He was asked for a better definition of 'fair', to which he made the unresponsive answer of, 'Well, we do--of course, he was in Jeff City serving time and I never did see him, nothing like that * * *' No objection was made to this response and there was no request to strike or to instruct the jury to disregard it. Defendant did not take the stand. Then in closing argument the prosecutor, apparently answering an attack made by the defense upon the witness Mitchell as to why Mitchell had failed to ask defendant what he was doing with a loaded shotgun in the back seat of Mitchell's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McMillin
...of witnesses is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court." Murray, 744 S.W.2d at 771-72, citing, State v. Crider, 419 S.W.2d 13, 14-15 (Mo.1967). Appellant did not renew his motion to admit his parents into the courtroom. In the punishment phase of the trial, appellant's moth......
-
State v. Murray
... ... The exclusion or non-exclusion of witnesses is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Crider, ... Page 772 ... 419 S.W.2d 13, 14-15 (Mo.1967). In this case, the excluded family members were to testify and thus did come within the rule requiring exclusion of witnesses. The defendant, however, alleges that his family's exclusion prejudiced him because their absence made it appear to ... ...
-
State v. Crider
...sentence of 30 years' imprisonment. On October 9, 1967 appellant's original judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Crider, Mo.Sup., 419 S.W.2d 13. Appellant himself prepared and approximately five months later filed this motion. Hon. Jay White was appointed attorney to repr......
-
State v. Hanson
...The decision as to whether witnesses should be excluded from the courtroom is discretionary with the trial court, State v. Crider, 419 S.W.2d 13, 14-15 (Mo.1967), and will not be disturbed unless abused. State v. Tummons, 34 S.W.2d 122, 123-124 (Mo.1930). It has been held that it was not an......