State v. Hall
| Decision Date | 11 March 1937 |
| Docket Number | 35108 |
| Citation | 102 S.W.2d 878 |
| Parties | STATE v. HALL |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Elmer B. Silvers, of Butler, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., Wm. Orr Sawyers, Asst. Atty. Gen and Arthur O'Keefe, of Jefferson City, for the State.
In the circuit court of Henry county, Mo., the appellant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced to ten years in the state penitentiary.
The appellant has made the following assignments of error in his brief and in his oral argument in this court:
(1) 'The Court erred in not sustaining defendant's motion to quash.'
(2) 'The Court erred in permitting the county court to appear by counsel and contest defendant's motion.'
(3) 'The verdict is against the evidence and not supported by substantial evidence.'
The State contends that these assignments of error are not before us, because the appellant's motion for a new trial is not specific and definite so as to raise these questions for our review.
Section 3735, R.S.Mo. 1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 3735, p. 3275) provides: 'The motion for a 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.'
This section requires the defendant to state the reason why he should have a new trial in detail and with particularity in each paragraph, so that the trial court will know the exact point that he relies on for a new trial. In other words, the exact point he relies on in this court for reversal must be brought to the trial court's attention by his motion for a new trial.
The only possible assignments of error in his motion for a new trial touching the points raised in this court are as follows:
We agree with the State that the assignments of error in the appellant's motion for a new trial are too general to raise the points relied upon in this court for our review, because section 3735, supra, has not been complied with. In the argument in this court the appellant contended that, while his assignment in his motion for a new trial that the 'Court erred in overruling defendant's motion to quash the jury panel' is general, it necessarily referred to the grounds set forth in the motion to quash, and therefore the exact point relied upon for reversal was called to the trial court's attention.
On the authority of State v. Layton, 332 Mo. 216, 58 S.W.2d 454, 455, loc. cit. 457, we rule this point against the appellant. In that case we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thorpe
...4125, R.S. 1939; State v. Page, 186 S.W.2d 503; State v. Dobbins, 351 Mo. 796, 174 S.W.2d 171; State v. Brown, 165 S.W.2d 420; State v. Hall, 102 S.W.2d 878; State Wood, 355 Mo. 1008, 199 S.W.2d 396; State v. Williams, 292 S.W. 19; State v. Thomas, 82 S.W.2d 885; State v. Levitt, 278 S.W. 3......
-
State v. Edwards
... ... 411, 312 Mo. 510; 1 Wharton, Criminal ... Procedure, p. 472. (2) This court will not consider ... defendant's motion to quash the information for the ... reason that the grounds for the quashing of said information ... are not set forth in the motion for new trial. State v ... Hall, 102 S.W.2d 878; State v. Layton, 332 Mo ... 216, 58 S.W.2d 454. (3) Appellant waived his right to urge ... the sustaining of the demurrer at the close of the ... State's case by offering evidence in his defense. The ... demurrer at the close of all the evidence in the case was ... properly ... ...
-
State v. Caldwell, 53550
...trial are to set forth in detail and with particularity the matters complained of and the grounds for the error relied upon. State v. Hall, Mo., 102 S.W.2d 878(1); State v. Buckner, Mo., 80 S.W.2d 167(11). The following assignments in defendant's motion for new trial do not comply with Rule......
- Brennecke v. Riemann