State v. Demaggio
| Decision Date | 10 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 37499.,37499. |
| Citation | 152 S.W.2d 71 |
| Parties | STATE v. DEMAGGIO. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pettis County; Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
Dominick Demaggio, alias Joe Mattio, was convicted of the crime of robbery, and he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Joseph N. Miniace, of Kansas City, and Henry C. Salveter, of Sedalia, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., W. J. Burke, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Leonard M. Bukstein, of St. Louis, for respondent.
In the Circuit Court of Pettis County, Missouri, the appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery and his punishment assessed at five years imprisonment in the State penitentiary. From this judgment and sentence he has duly appealed.
Appellant's motion for a new trial assigns two errors; first, in the court's rulings during the cross-examination of appellant's witness Marlin, and second, in its failure to discharge the jury and declare a mistrial because of the remarks made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument.
W. L. Marlin was the sheriff of Pettis County. The record shows that the only objection made during the cross-examination of this witness was made under the following circumstances.
The appellant waited until the witness had answered the question before he made any objection. He made no motion to strike out the answer. The court cannot be charged with error for permitting the witness to answer questions to which there was not a timely objection made. State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909, 46 S.W.2d 877; State v. Albritton and Taylor, 328 Mo. 349, 40 S.W.2d 676.
The appellant contends that the trial court should have discharged the jury because of the following remarks of the prosecuting attorney in his closing argument:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roseberry
...been objectionable. It is plain that, under such circumstances, the trial court cannot be convicted of reversible error. State v. Demaggio, Mo., 152 S.W.2d 71, 72(2); State v. Busch, 342 Mo. 959, 119 S.W.2d 265, 269-270(11); State v. Revard, 341 Mo. 170, 106 S.W.2d 906, 909(8); State v. Ran......
-
State v. Hannon
... ... Apparently this statement was in answer to something said by ... defendant's counsel which is not shown in the record. In ... this situation, we cannot say that the court abused its ... discretion in overruling the objection and in refusing to ... declare a mistrial. [See State v. Demaggio, (Mo ... Sup.) 152 S.W.2d 71, 72; State v. Reagan, (Mo ... Sup.) 108 S.W.2d 391, 397; State v. Pinkston, ... 336 Mo. 614, 617, 79 S.W.2d 1046, 1048, and cases therein ... cited.] The other statement alleged in the motion to have ... been made by the prosecuting attorney is a misstatement of ... ...
-
State v. James
...to secure bail for his release from jail pending trial. We find no abuse of the discretion resting in the trial court. State v. Demaggio, Mo., 152 S.W.2d 71, 72; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 1108, p. Defendant says a mistrial should have been declared because of asserted misconduct of witnes......
-
State v. Hannon
...we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in overruling the objection and in refusing to declare a mistrial. See State v. Demaggio, Mo.Sup., 152 S.W.2d 71, 72; State v. Reagan, Mo.Sup., 108 S.W.2d 391, 397; State v. Pinkston, 336 Mo. 614, 617, 79 S.W.2d 1046, 1048, and cases therei......