State v. Garner
| Decision Date | 03 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 530 S.W.2d 420 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marshall J. GARNER, Appellant. 27391. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Gerald M. Handley, Acting Public Defender, Mark D. Johnson, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Sommers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before WASSERSTROM, P.J., and SHANGLER and DIXON, JJ.
Defendant appeals after being convicted of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon and sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.
From the evidence the jury could reasonably find the following facts. At about 1:30 a.m. on January 31, 1974, a cab, driven by Mr. Leon Eskina was parked at the cab stand near the Continental Bus Station in downtown Kansas City. A man in civilian clothing approached Eskina, identified himself as a soldier, and arranged to be taken to the airport. Two other men, later identified as defendant Garner and Willie McDowell, overheard their conversation and asked if they could split the fee to the airport. All three got in the cab, defendant and the soldier in the back and McDowell in front.
Shortly thereafter, defendant produced a revolver, held it to Eskina's neck, asked for his money, and then took money from his shirt pocket and wallet. Next, McDowell, after pulling out a gun, demanded the soldier's money. A scuffle between McDowell and the soldier ensued; Eskina was ordered to get out of the cab and lie down in the street. After more scuffling and conversation, defendant and McDowell fled, taking the soldier's coat with them.
Defendant raises two points on appeal. The first charges that the prosecutor's closing argument went outside the evidence, and the second challenges the admission of certain evidence.
The portion of the closing arguing complained of was as follows:
'MR. JOHNSON (Defendant's attorney): I object to that, your Honor, that is not the evidence.
In support of his contention that the argument quoted went outside the evidence, defendant urges first that no evidence identified McDowell as one of the robbers. That point is untenable. The evidence shows without dispute that a line-up was conducted at police headquarters three or four hours after the robbery. Defendant and McDowell along with three other men were put on view. Eskina identified number 1 and number 2 men in the line-up as being the persons who committed the robbery, and two photographs of the lineup were introduced as exhibits and passed to the jury. During the course of trial, defendant's mother testified and pointed out McDowell sitting on the first bench in the spectator portion of the courtroom. Moreover, Eskina on cross-examination was asked if the robber other than defendant was in the courtroom, and he responded, '(t)he gentleman over there looks a little bit like him.' Identification of McDowell by Eskina as one of the robbers may at least be inferred from the evidence, and the prosecutor could legitimately argue that conclusion.
Defendant argues next that the evidence failed to show that McDowell was present at all times during the trial. The direct evidence with respect to this matter occurred in the testimony of defendant, himself, who testified:
* * *' The prosecutor's statement that McDowell had been present 'all during the course of this trial'--a trial which lasted a day and a half--does not differ significantly from defendant's testimony. Additionally, defendant's mother identified McDowell as being present in the courtroom during her testimony; and the jury could have recognized from her identification and from the photographs of the police line-up that the man pointed out in the courtroom by Eskina during his testimony was again McDowell. This portion of the prosecutor's argument must be held to be within the scope of the evidence. Even if the trial court did not rule specifically on the objection now under consideration, the omission could not have been prejudicial to defendant.
Finally, defendant argues under this point that the record contains no evidence that McDowell was sitting in the courtroom on the second day of trial. However, in this respect the trial court immediately admonished the prosecutor to 'stay within the record', and defense counsel was satisfied to leave the matter in that state without requesting anything further....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Swenson
...defendant is being tried." State v. Griffin, 497 S.W.2d 133 (Mo.1973); State v. Torrence, 519 S.W.2d 360 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Garner, 530 S.W.2d 420 (Mo.App.1975). In Kansas City v. LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112 (Mo. banc 1975), two knives wielded by persons present at the scene of the crime bu......
-
State v. Weatherspoon
...was being tried" because such evidence is part of the res gestae. State v. Gray, 478 S.W.2d 654, 669 (Mo.1972); State v. Garner, 530 S.W.2d 420, 423 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Morris, 523 S.W.2d 329, 331 Testimony disclosing the circumstances of Roberta Loy Hearn's death was admissible under t......
- State v. Morris
-
State v. Sykes, 38686
...note that the monitoring of closing argument is traditionally a matter within the discretion of the trial court, e. g., State v. Garner, 530 S.W.2d 420 (Mo.App.1975). In this case we cannot say that the prosecutor's statements during final argument were "plainly unwarranted and clearly inju......