State v. Deloch, 38532
| Decision Date | 19 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38532,38532 |
| Citation | 554 S.W.2d 559 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry DELOCH, Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, Frank R. Fabbri III, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Nels C. Moss, Jr., Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
A jury found defendant Larry Deloch, guilty of three counts of felonious wounding (§ 559.210 RSMo 1969), and a fourth count of operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner (§ 560.175(1) and § 560.180(1)). The court sentenced defendant to four years imprisonment for each of the three counts of felonious wounding, to run consecutively, and four years imprisonment for operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, to run concurrently with the other counts.
The defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence, so we shall only give a brief review of the facts.
Three police officers of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling near the intersection of Eleventh Street and Delmar Avenue on October 20, 1975. The officers observed a brown 1975 Ford driven by the defendant traveling the wrong way on Delmar at an excessive speed. The vehicle then proceeded to disregard the traffic signal on Delmar. The officers gave chase and radioed for assistance.
After a brief chase, the vehicle driven by the defendant collided with a second car on Parnell Avenue. The driver and the passengers in the second car were seriously hurt and rushed to the hospital. The defendant was placed under arrest. The vehicle driven by the defendant was identified as a stolen auto belonging to Mr. Kent Bartels. During the arrest, the officers found several items on the driver's seat which indicated the vehicle was stolen. The items included a "dent puller," ignition switch, broken screw, and a screwdriver.
The trial took place on September 2, 1976. Testimony was offered by the three policemen involved in the chase, and an eyewitness to the collision with the second car. During the trial, "the dent puller," ignition switch, broken screw, and screwdriver were all marked as state's exhibits and identified by the police officers in front of the jury as the evidence found in the stolen car at the time of the arrest. The state did not move to introduce these items during the presentation of their case in chief, but requested during the closing argument that the case be reopened for the sole purpose of introducing the items into evidence. The trial court allowed the case to be reopened and the items formally admitted over the objections of the defendant.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all four counts, and the court sentenced the defendant as set out above. This appeal followed.
Defendant raises two issues on appeal: 1) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to reopen the case during closing argument and introduce the items found in the stolen car, and 2) it was plain error for the state to fail to cite the section of the Missouri Statutes proscribing the conduct charged in the substituted Information.
We hold the first issue to be without merit. Any contention of error by the trial court in reopening the case for the purpose of admitting the items was waived. The only objection made to the admissibility of this evidence was one relating to the relevance and prejudicial effect. An assignment of error made in a motion for a new trial or on appeal must be predicated upon an objection made in the trial court. State v. Jones, 515 S.W.2d 504 (Mo.1974). No objection was made to the reopening of the case.
However, even if this point was preserved, we do not believe there was an abuse of discretion. As stated in State v. Robinson, 325 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.1969, (at 470), "It is well settled that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lumsden
...contain statute references for offense charged and punishment, and no prejudice appears from their absence in this case. State v. Deloch, 554 S.W.2d 559 (Mo.App.1977). Appellant also charges the information is deficient in that it purports to charge defendant with first degree robbery but t......
-
DeLoch v. State, 40104
...be without merit, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion. The facts leading to movant's conviction are found in State v. DeLoch, 554 S.W.2d 559 (Mo.App.1977). Briefly, a jury convicted the movant of three counts of felonious wounding and one count of operating a motor vehicle with......
-
State v. Murry, 39406
...the 1976 information was filed, it was not necessary, as it is now, to cite the applicable Missouri Statute. Rule 24.01; State v. Deloch, 554 S.W.2d 559 (Mo.App.1977). Defendant complains that the evidence did not conform to the information in that the victim testified that he did not feel ......