State v. Harris, 29918
Decision Date | 06 May 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 29918,29918 |
Citation | 313 S.W.2d 219 |
Parties | The STATE of Missouri (Plaintiff), Respondent, v. Robert HARRIS (Defendant), Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Raymond A. Bruntrager, St. Louis, for appellant.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Circuit Atty., Robert Kingsland and George W. Draper, II, Asst. Circuit Attys., St. Louis, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Division No. 10, finding Robert Harris guilty of possession of lottery tickets, a misdemeanor. Before trial defendant filed a motion to suppress certain evidence in the nature of 'policy' paraphernalia on the ground that the evidence was obtained by search and seizure before defendant's arrest, without a warrant for his arrest, and while defendant was within the peace of the State, so that the search and seizure were 'unreasonable, illegal and violative of Sections 15 and 19 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri [V.A.M.S.] * * * and were violative of the rights of this defendant as accorded and afforded him under and by virtue of the above Sections * * * and that to permit the use of said evidence against this defendant at the trial would be compelling this defendant to give testimony against himself.' This motion was overruled. When at the trial questions were asked concerning the nature of the evidence obtained when defendant was arrested defendant's counsel objected on the ground that 'anything that was found was the result of an illegal search and a violation of the constitutional rights of the defendant.' The objection was overruled. After the articles were marked and offered to a witness for the purpose of identification defendant's counsel objected to any oral testimony and to the introduction of the exhibits on the ground that they were taken 'as a result of an unlawful search and seizure and a violation of the constitutional rights guaranteed by the State Constitution. * * *.' Defendant's counsel objected to any oral testimony by Officer Davis on the ground that the things testified to by the officer were learned as a result of an illegal search and seizure. When State's Exhibits 1 through 11 were offered in evidence defendant's counsel objected to them 'on the ground previously stated.' Upon conviction defendant filed a motion for a new trial, stating among other the following grounds:
- Point I of appellant's brief preserves the point that the court erred in overruling the motion to suppress and in permitting oral testimony concerning the challenged evidence on the ground that the evidence was seized by virtue of an unreasonable search and seizure and not incident to any lawful arrest. In appellant's argument it is stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jackson
...sense and confers jurisdiction on this court. State v. Civella, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 444; State v. Poelker, Mo., 378 S.W.2d 491; State v. Harris, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 219; State v. Dean, Mo., 181 S.W. The argument objected to as infringing his constitutionally protected right against self-incrimi......
-
State v. Harris
...a $1,000 fine. He appealed from the ensuing judgment to the St. Louis Court of Appeals. That court, by an opinion reported at Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 219, transferred the case here on the ground that defendant had properly raised and preserved a question involving the construction of the consti......
-
Neidhart v. Areaco Inv. Co., 57141
...two or three transfers, back and forth, to settle the question and get the case decided on the merits. For example, see State v. Harris, 313 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.App.1959); State v. Harris, 321 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. banc 1959); and State v. Harris, 325 S.W.2d 352 The constitutional amendment of 1970 wi......