State v. Grove
| Citation | 204 S.W.2d 757 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 40105 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bill Grove, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
From the Circuit Court of Greene County Criminal Appeal Judge Guy D. Kirby
Affirmed
The appellant was convicted in the Greene County Circuit Court of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition and has appealed.
It appears from the record before us that on January 31, 1945 between 9:15 and 9:30 A.M., in the City of Springfield, near Broadway and West Walnut Streets, defendant was operating his motor car on the wrong side of the street and collided with another vehicle operated by one Bruce. Defendant momentarily stopped, then started his car and left the scene. Witnesses identified defendant as operating the motor car at that place and time. One witness took his license number. The matter was immediately reported to the Springfield Police Department. A search was thereupon instituted but the police failed at that time to find either the vehicle or defendant. A few minutes later another call notified the Police that a man who was either ill or drunk was operating a motor car in the four hundred block on South Campbell Street, about four blocks from the Police Station. When police officers responded to that call at 9:55 A.M. they found defendant in a very drunken condition near his motor car. He admitted his identity and the ownership of the car. The license number on the motor car was identical with the number which had been taken at Broadway and Walnut Streets just about thirty minutes before. Defendant admitted to the police officer that he had been operating his motor car.
Before the police arrived there a bystander had taken the keys out of the ignition and gave the keys to the police upon their arrival there. Defendant, who was quite drunk, staggered to the car, got in under the steering wheel, locked the doors and windows from the inside and refused to come out. Defendant, by holding the door handles on the inside, prevented police from unlocking the car door. Defendant was so intoxicated that he had vomited upon his car and clothing. The odor of alcohol was upon defendant's breath and clothing. His conduct was boisterous, loud, profane and drunken. Quite a crowd gathered to observe. Defendant operated the car back and forth by putting it in gear and stepping upon the starter. After about forty minutes defendant's wife came with other keys and defendant permitted the car door to be opened. He was then arrested and taken to the police station but was much too intoxicated and uncooperative to be given the intoxication test, which, in any event, appears from the record to have been unnecessary. The facts above set out stand undenied and undisputed in the record before us.
The only witness called by defendant was a Doctor Stone who testified that in his opinion defendant could have been sober at 9:15 to 9:30 A.M. and as drunk as the record shows him to have been by 9:55 A.M.
Where, as here, defendant has not favored us with a brief upon appeal, we look upon the specifications in his motion for new trial as his assignments of error in this Court, and we must consider all questions there properly preserved for review. State v. Price, 348 Mo. 361, 153 S.W.2d 353, State v. Marshall, 354 Mo. 312, 189 S.W.2d 301, State v. Taylor, 335 Mo. 460, 73 S.W.2d 378, Mo. R.S.A. § 4150.
Defendant's motion for new trial alleges that the trial court erred in failing to direct the jury to acquit him at the close of the evidence upon behalf of the State, and also at the close of the evidence for defendant. It is sufficient answer that at neither stage of the trial, nor at any time, did the defendant request any such action of the trial court. State v. Meadows, 330 Mo. 1020, 51 S.W.2d 1033. The evidence of record before us, however, is amply sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury and to support the verdict and judgment of conviction. State v. Kissinger, 343 Mo. 781, 123 S.W.2d 81, State v. Raines, 333 Mo. 538, 62 S.W.2d 727, State v. Reifsteck, 317 Mo. 268, 295 S.W. 741, State v. Griffin, 320 Mo. 288, 6 S.W.2d 866, State v. Hatcher, 303 Mo. 13, 259 S.W. 467, State v. Johnson, (Mo. Sup.) 55 S.W.2d 967.
Defendant's next assignment that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is too vague, general and indefinite to merit consideration under the statute. State v. Francis, 330 Mo. 1205, 52 S.W.2d 552, State v. Thomas, (Mo. Sup.) 82 S.W.2d 885, Mo. R.S.A. § 4125. It may be observed from what we have said above that no testimony was introduced at all to make any issue as to the facts established by the testimony introduced by the State.
It is next alleged in defendant's motion that the jury's verdict is the result of passion and prejudice and assessed a wholly unjustifiable punishment. By Section 8401, Subsection (g) Mo. R.S.A. it is provided that "no person shall operate a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition". To sustain a conviction it must be established by the State by substantial evidence that he operated a motor vehicle and that he was in an intoxicated condition while so doing. As stated, the evidence is sufficient to establish those facts.
Section 8404 Mo. R.S.A. declares the offense of which defendant was convicted to be a felony with a maximum imprisonment of five years in the penitentiary, the punishment grading down to not more than one year in jail, a fine of not more than $100.00 or both fine and imprisonment in jail. In the instant case the jury assessed defendant's punishment at nine months in jail, and a fine of $100.00. Under the circumstances of record the punishment assessed in the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial