State v. Garrett, 10843
| Citation | 566 S.W.2d 516 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 10843,10843 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Arvin Junior GARRETT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Robert Presson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Blair Buckley, Jr., Public Defender, Caruthersville, for defendant-appellant.
Arvin Junior Garrett, aka Jim Garrett, was jury-convicted of first degree murder and, in accordance with the verdict, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Defendant's utter disregard of the rules of the Supreme Court, V.A.M.R., relating to matters in the circuit court and in this court would justify a simple dispatch of the appeal for rule violations. Rule 27.20(a) mandates that "A motion for new trial shall be in writing and must set forth in detail and with particularity, in separate numbered paragraphs, the specific grounds or causes therefor." As filed, the motion stated that defendant should have a new trial and that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal filed at the close of the state's case and at the close of all the evidence because the state had failed to prove "the elements of the crime alleged in the information beyond a reasonable doubt." We observe initially that after the motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case was overruled, the defendant offered evidence in his own behalf. This action served to waive any claim of error as to the denial of his motion filed at the conclusion of the state's case. State v. Lewis, 526 S.W.2d 49, 52(1) (Mo.App.1975); State v. Winters, 525 S.W.2d 417, 424(13) (Mo.App.1975); State v. Mulkey, 523 S.W.2d 145, 147(3) (Mo.App.1975); State v. Benfield, 522 S.W.2d 830, 831(1) (Mo.App.1975). Also, an assertion that a new trial or that a motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because the state failed to prove the elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, is simply another way of claiming that the conviction was contrary to the weight of the evidence and represents the epitome of conclusionary assertions shorn of any particular or specific grounds for the trial court's averred errors. State v. Amerson, 518 S.W.2d 29, 31(1) (Mo.1975); State v. Lamaster, 534 S.W.2d 574, 578(5) (Mo.App.1976).
Rule 81.03 states that the "party appealing shall be known as the appellant, and the adverse party as the respondent, but the title of the action shall not be changed in consequence of the appeal." (Emphasis supplied). Contrary to this rule, defendant's brief comes to us entitled: "Arvin Junior Garrett, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent."
Defendant's brief also arrives in form which represents a complete disregard of the requirements of Rule 84.04. Subsection (c) of that rule provides: The fault in defendant's brief as regards Rule 84.04(c), is simply that the "Statement of Facts" portion does not contain a statement of facts it contains only a resume of each witnesses' testimony which does not state the rule. State v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 606(2) (Mo.App.1976); Handshy v. Hasty, 444 S.W.2d 48, 49(1) (Mo.App.1969).
The lone point relied on in defendant's brief (mislabeled "Points and Authorities") is: "The state has the burden to establish each of the essential elements of its case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt." This so-called point is a patent violation of the requirements of Rule 84.04(d) which is applicable in criminal cases by Rule 28.18. State v. Warren, 469 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Mo.App.1971). The point is a mere abstract statement of law which preserves nothing for review on appeal. Riley v. State, 545 S.W.2d 711, 712 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Velas, 537 S.W.2d 881, 883(1) (Mo.App.1976); Kansas City v. Garza, 493 S.W.2d 659 (Mo.App.1973).
We are always reluctant to dispose of an appeal upon what some may term "legal technicalities", especially where the punishment imposed is a sentence for life. But a conning of the transcript on appeal and the state's evidence most favorable to the verdict (State v. Nichelson, 546 S.W.2d 539, 542(3) (Mo.App.1977)), assures us of the propriety of the jury's action and that no error, plain or otherwise, occurred which affected defendant's substantial rights.
The jury could have reasonably found beyond a reasonable doubt that before the occurrence of the charged crime, defendant or one Frazier, or both, had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garrett
...where he was tried and convicted of the Smith murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed. State v. Garrett, 566 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.1978). On November 3, 1977, the appellant was taken to the penitentiary under his sentence for the Smith Connie Flowers then est......
-
State v. Harris, WD
...v. Riley, supra. The presence of an accused at the scene, coupled with other evidence, will sustain a conviction, see State v. Garrett, 566 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.1978), and State v. Minor, 531 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.1975). Participation may be inferred and the evidence need not directly reflect th......
-
State v. Cullen, 11169
...and flight, when coupled with other evidence of active participation, is sufficient to justify a finding of guilty. State v. Garrett, 566 S.W.2d 516, 518 (Mo.App.1978). State v. Taylor, supra, 542 S.W.2d at 94, states that a person's presence in a residential area at 10:30 a. m. is "less su......
-
State v. Frazier, 10973
...of the first degree murder of Mr. Smith and sentenced to life imprisonment. That conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Garrett, 566 S.W.2d 516 (Mo.App.1978). Defendant was 21 years of age when he gave the statement. He testified that he was in special education from the third to......