State v. Denmon, KCD
| Decision Date | 31 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 570 S.W.2d 326 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael DENMON, Defendant-Appellant. 29482. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James L. McMullin, McMullin, Wilson & Schwarz, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Daniel F. Lyman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.
The defendant appeals a conviction for murder in the second degree and a jury-imposed sentence of fifteen years subsequently reduced to ten years by the trial court.
Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the verdict and, in a related point, that the verdict was based upon the perjured testimony of two witnesses.
Under the familiar rule that upon the issue of sufficiency, the evidence will be viewed in the light most favorable to the State and with regard to all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict with contrary evidence being disregarded, State v. Roberson, 548 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App.1977), the record supports the following statement of facts.
An inmate named Barnett was assaulted in his cell in the Jackson County Jail and subsequently died from injuries received in the assault. At the time of the assault, defendant was a prisoner in the same "tank" which consisted of six cells with access to one another. An inmate witness named Whitley recounted the events of the lights in the "tank" being turned off and going to Barnett's cell with the defendant. After Whitley returned to his cell, he could determine from the noises that someone was being beaten in Barnett's cell and observed the defendant stomping on Barnett who was tied up. Another inmate witness Williams testified he was present in Barnett's cell and observed the beating of Barnett by the defendant and two other inmates. Both of these witnesses admitted that charges were dismissed against them in exchange for their testimony against the defendant in the instant case.
Defendant's first point, that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law, is based upon the defendant's claim that the only evidence connecting the defendant with the crime was that of the inmates who testified and that they were "admitted perjurers and liars" and that Whitley was a "co-defendant." Despite these conclusory statements concerning the witnesses Whitley and Williams, they have no support in the transcript in this case....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coleman
...S.W.2d 113 (Mo.banc 1979); State v. Garner, 481 S.W.2d 239 (Mo.1972); State v. Frank, 639 S.W.2d 209 (Mo.App.1982); and State v. Denmon, 570 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App.1978). Aside from the fact that appellate courts view the evidence in the light "most favorable to the state," State v. Greathouse,......
-
State v. Harris, WD
...cannot weigh the evidence or substitute its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses for that of the jury, see State v. Denmon, 570 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App.1978) and State v. Roesel, 574 S.W.2d 944 (Mo.App.1978). The charge to this court is the determination of whether or not there is subs......
-
State v. Ross
...conflicts were for the jury to determine on issues of credibility, a matter which is not for review in this court. State v. Denmon, 570 S.W.2d 326, 327[1, 2] (Mo.App.1978). Brown's testimony, above outlined, is not as a matter of law so contradictory, inconsistent and self-destructive, as t......
-
State v. Stufflebean, WD 31256.
...testimony. Such matters are not a subject open to review on appeal but are finally resolved by the finder of fact. State v. Denmon, 570 S.W.2d 326, 327 (Mo. App.1978). The jury here quite apparently believed the testimony of Mrs. Bruce and Copas and it was enough to sustain the The judgment......