State v. Flint
| Decision Date | 31 May 2000 |
| Citation | 26 S.W.3d 178 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Loren Flint, Appellant. WD56657 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Nodaway County, Hon. John C. Andrews
Opinion Summary: Loren E. Flint, II, appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him after a jury trial of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the 1998 shooting of Troy Wissler in Bigelow.
Division Four holds: (1) All of Flint's points violate Rule 30.06(d) by not indicating why the trial court's ruling was erroneous. Thus, the points present nothing for review.
(2) Flint's statement of facts is insufficient under Rule 30.06(h) because he did not cite any transcript pages from which this court might be able to find the facts he averred.
(3) Flint's failure to set out the jury instructions upon which he charges error violates Rule 30.06(e).
The appellant, Loren E. Flint, II, appeals the trial court's judgment convicting him after a jury trial of involuntary manslaughter, section 565.024, RSMo 1994, and sentencing him as a persistent offender under section 558.016.3, RSMo 1994, to 15 years in prison. Flint was charged in connection with the April 25, 1998, shooting death of Troy Wissler in Bigelow.
Flint raises 15 points of error in this appeal. The points, in their entirety, state as follows:
The court erred in denying the defense funds for an expert and investigator.
The court erred in denying defendant's motion for a bill of particulars.
The court erred in allowing the prosecution to refers [sic] to defendant's carbine as a "high powered rifle."
The court erred in overruling repeated defense objections to calling the deceased a "victim."
The court erred in refusing to allow testimony by an expert witnesses [sic] in the human dynamics of violent interpersonal encounters.
The court erred in denying defendant's motion for dismissal before trial, motion for dismissal at the close of the state's evidence, and motion for dismissal at the close of all the evidence.
The court erred by refusing to allow prior inconsistent statements by prosecution witnesses.
The court erred in refusing to allow the defense latitude in cross-examining Ben Hihath.
The court erred in excluding the 911 tape from evidence.
The court erred in allowing the prosecution to censor questioning of a defense witness.
The court erred in denying the defense motion for mistrial on the grounds of being denied the use of the 911 tape and expert witness in the dynamics of violent interpersonal encounter.
The court committed plain error in admitting an involuntary manslaughter instruction.
The court erred in excluding the defense version of Instruction 12.
The court erred in denying a mistrial or new trial on the basis of prosecutoral [sic] misconduct.
The court erred in sentencing the defendant as a prior and persistent offender.
All of these points violate Rule 30.06(d)1 which says:
The points relied on shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the court are sought to be reviewed and wherein and why they are claimed to be erroneous with citations of authorities thereunder. If more than three authorities are cited in support of a point made, the three authorities principally relied on shall be cited first. All authorities discussed in the argument shall be cited under the "Points Relied On." Long lists of citations should not be included.
Setting out only abstract statements of law without showing how they are related to any action or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hackler
...bald allegation of error without any explanation as to how or why the evidence would have supported a different ruling. State v. Flint, 26 S.W.3d 178, 179 (Mo.App. 2000). "Merely stating what the alleged errors are, without stating why they are errors, does not satisfy the requirements of t......
-
State v. Nunley, WD 60657.
...to comb through the record searching for the facts that would support the appellant's claims, whatever they may be. State v. Flint, 26 S.W.3d 178, 179 (Mo.App.2000). As a general proposition, we are naturally reluctant to decline appellate review in a criminal case for briefing deficiencies......