State v. Davison, 10097

Decision Date06 January 1977
Docket NumberNo. 10097,10097
Citation545 S.W.2d 723
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Robert Ellis DAVISON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Nanette Laughrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Gregory K. Johnson, Springfield, for defendant-appellant.


BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Defendant Robert Ellis Davison was convicted of first degree burglary (§ 560.040, RSMo 1969) and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. In this appeal he contends the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance and committed error in giving the verdict directing instruction. We affirm.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict is not questioned. Defendant and an accomplice broke into and entered a locked residence in Springfield, Missouri. Upon gaining entry, the two suddenly found themselves confronted by the owner of the house and his brother, both of whom were armed. The accomplice apparently made a successful getaway but defendant was held at gunpoint until authorities arrived and took him into custody.

Prior to the start of the defendant's trial his attorney made an oral motion for a continuance because of the absence of defense witness McDaris, an asserted material witness. The motion was opposed by the state because the witness had not been subpoenaed either in the pending trial or an earlier trial and McDaris' purported testimony would be cumulative to the testimony another defense witness would give. A stipulation was entered into as to what witness McDaris would testify to if present, and it was read to the jury without objection as a part of the defendant's case.

The trial court is vested with discretion in granting or denying a continuance, State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 21--22 (Mo. banc 1972), and we are not to interfere with that court's ruling unless there is a showing that it abused its discretion by acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and opporessively. State v. Reece, 505 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.1974); State v. Winters, 525 S.W.2d 417, 423 (Mo.App.1975). Defendant has wholly failed to make such a showing in this case. Furthermore, defendant failed to comply with Rule 25.08, V.A.M.R., governing continuances, and such noncompliance is, of itself, a sufficient ground for denying the continuance. State v. Cuckovih, supra, 485 S.W.2d at 21; State v. Martin, 515 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Mo.App.1974). Last, but not least, is defendant's failure to demonstrate any prejudice by the court's action. The McDaris testimony is practically identical to that given by another defense witness, and by stipulation of the parties the McDaris testimony was read to the jury by the defendant. We find no error.

Defendant complains that the omission of the words 'of the house' following the word 'door' in the third paragraph of MAI-CR 7.20 constitutes reversible error. We do not agree. True, the Supreme Court in adopting the Missouri Approved Criminal Instructions made it clear that giving or failing to give an instruction in violation of Rule 20.02 constitutes error, but paragraph (e) of that rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Dominique
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1981
    ...trial court will stand. State v. Lansford, 594 S.W.2d 617 (Mo.banc 1980); State v. Cobb, 444 S.W.2d 408 (Mo.banc 1969); State v. Davison, 545 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.App. 1977). During the colloquy between court and counsel concerning these preliminary motions, it was stated and generally agreed tha......
  • State v. Teegarden
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 5, 1977
    ...manner. State v. Reece, 505 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Mo.1974); State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16, 21-22 (Mo.banc 1972); and State v. Davison, 545 S.W.2d 723, 724-25 (Mo.App.1977). More specifically, when an accused fails to demonstrate that he has been prejudiced, a charge will not lie that a trial c......
  • State v. Windle, 11835
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 1981
    ...discretion in granting or denying a continuance in a criminal case. State v. Cuckovich, 485 S.W.2d 16 (Mo. banc 1972); State v. Davison, 545 S.W.2d 723 (Mo.App.1977). A denial of a continuance sought by a defendant is an exercise of the trial court's sound discretion, and in our review of s......
  • State v. Ethelbert, 11670
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 19, 1981
    ...with that ruling unless there is an abuse of discretion by acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and oppressively. State v. Davison, 545 S.W.2d 723, 724-725 (Mo.App.1977). See also State v. Teegarden, 559 S.W.2d 618, 621 (Mo.App.1977). We find no abuse of discretion here. No prejudice was shown......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT