State v. Harris, 59720
Citation | 547 S.W.2d 473 |
Decision Date | 14 March 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 59720,59720 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Earl HARRIS, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Blair K. Brazic, St. Louis, for appellant.
Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant, Ronald Earl Harris, was convicted of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent by a jury in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis and was sentenced by the trial court, under the Habitual Criminal Act (§ 556.280, RSMo 1969), to imprisonment for a term of five years. Following rendition of judgment and imposition of sentence, an appeal was perfected to the Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, where the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded. Upon application of respondent, the cause was transferred here by order of this Court. We determine the cause "the same as on original appeal." Mo.Const. Art. V, § 10.
On March 20, 1973, a car driven by appellant crossed in front of two police officers who were stopped at a stop sign in the City of St. Louis. Because of appellant's youthful appearance, the police officers stopped appellant and arrested him. The police officers made a check on the car and learned it was stolen.
Appellant asserts the trial court erred "in denying defendant's Motion for Mistrial after the jury was informed that defendant was charged with an alleged prior conviction because this violated defendant's right to be tried for the offense with which he was charged."
The following transpired at trial:
In State v. Camper, 391 S.W.2d 926, 927, 928 (Mo.1965), this Court said:
The trial court ordered the testimony of the witness concerning the prior conviction stricken from the record and instructed the jury to disregard it. We cannot say as a matter of law that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial. Appellant's assertion of error is without merit. Cf. Evenson v. United States, 316 F.2d 94 (8 Cir. 1963); State v. Dennison, 428 S.W.2d 573 (Mo.1968).
Appellant next asserts that the "admission of testimony of Officer Messmer that defendant was given his Miranda warnings after his arrest and that he made no statement in response thereto resulted in manifest injustice and miscarriage of justice and was plain error, * * *."
The pertinent portion of the record on appeal reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chavez v. State
...Cal.App.3d 801, 136 Cal.Rptr. 241 (1977); Bullard v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 533 S.W.2d 812 (1976) and 548 S.W.2d 13 (1977); State v. Harris, Mo., 547 S.W.2d 473 (1977); People v. Morton, 41 Cal.2d 536, 261 P.2d 523 (1953); State v. Hillerud, 76 S.D. 476, 81 N.W.2d 130 Although we have said tha......
-
State v. Hill
...as to require that drastic remedy is a determination to be made by the trial court in the sound exercise of its discretion. State v. Harris, 547 S.W.2d 473 (Mo. banc 1977). The remarks in question did not attribute any grievous crime to the defendant, and in fact did not necessarily attribu......
-
State v. Lee, 13092
...in the alternative if the issue of former conviction be found in favor of defendant to grant him a new trial on all issues.' State v. Harris, 547 S.W.2d 473, 476 (Mo.banc That procedure is particularly appropriate under the present statutes and the facts of this case and is adopted. The sen......
-
Clay, v. Dormire
...487 (Mo. 1967). 23. 983 S.W.2d 520, 522 (Mo. banc 1999). 24. State v. McFall, 866 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo. App. 1993). Accord, State v. Harris, 547 S.W.2d 473, 475-476 (Mo. banc 1977); State v. Blackwell, 459 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Mo. banc 1970); State v. Vermillion, 446 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Mo. banc 19......