State v. Harris
| Decision Date | 09 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56578,No. 1,56578,1 |
| Citation | 486 S.W.2d 227 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Murray HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Boicourt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Kent E. Karohl, Kirkwood, Thomas P. Howe, Clayton, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
By an indictment in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis, Murray Harris was charged with setting up a common bawdy house within 100 yards of a public school, in violation of § 563.090, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The case was tried before a jury in the court of Judge Ivan Lee Holt, Jr., on September 23 and 24, 1970. At the close of the state's case, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge. Over defendant's objection, the state was permitted to reopen its case and present additional evidence. The defendant offered no evidence and filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence. The motion was considered by the judge who stated (in part):
An order was entered overruling the motion and the cause submitted to the jury which returned a verdict of guilty. The trial court had previously found the Second Offender Act applicable and upon return of the verdict announced that sentence of five years' imprisonment would be imposed.
On the date of the verdict, September 24, 1970, defendant was granted thirty days additional for filing a motion for new trial. On October 29, 1970, he filed a 'MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.' The judgment of acquittal was sought because of the inadequacy of the evidence.
On January 11, 1971, the court entered the following order:
'If this judgment is reversed by an appellate court, defendant's Motion for a New Trial is denied.'
On January 18, 1971, the state filed a motion to set aside the order of January 11 on the grounds that the court had no authority to enter such an order. On February 1, 1971, the court made the following order:
On February 11, 1971, there was filed in this court a notice of appeal as follows:
'Notice is hereby given that Murray Harris, Defendant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court from the Court's order sustaining State's Motion to Vacate the Order entered in this action on February 1, 1971, which said order purports to vacate the Court's judgment of acquittal granted January 11, 1971.'
The transcript and briefs in this court present several procedural problems. The state, relying upon State v. Pottinger, 365 Mo. 794, 287 S.W.2d 782, contends that Missouri criminal procedure does not authorize a motion for judgment of acquittal after the jury verdict has been returned. Compare Ex Parte United States, 7th Cir., 101 F.2d 870, 131 A.L.R. 176. The February 1, 1971 order purports to grant a new trial more than ninety days following the filing of a motion for new trial, contrary to Supreme Court Rule 27.20(b), V.A.M.R. However, before this court can consider these questions it must have properly acquired jurisdiction of the purported appeal.
Supreme Court Rule 28.03, V.A.M.R., embodying the provisions of § 547.070, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., authorizes an appeal by the defendant '(a)fter the rendition of final judgment in any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Waters
...860 (Mo. banc 1984), overruled on other grounds by Yale v. City of Independence , 846 S.W.2d 193, 196 (Mo. banc 1993) ; State v. Harris , 486 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo. 1972). The determination that a judgment is final when a sentence has been imposed is, generally, consistent with the requiremen......
-
State v. Carter
...order granting a new trial in a criminal case is not final for purposes of appeal. Rather, it is an interlocutory order. State v. Harris, 486 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.1972); see also State v. Herring, 887 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Mo.App. S.D.1994). An interlocutory order is that decides some matter, but......
-
State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy
...It should be noted that the substantive right of appeal is dependent on statute. Mo.Const. art. V, § 5; Rule 81.01; State v. Harris, 486 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.1972). ...
-
State v. Ring, WD 60649.
...that a defendant could not appeal from an order granting a new trial in a criminal case because the order was not final. State v. Harris, 486 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.1972). "The order purportedly grants a new trial, an interlocutory order from which by virtue of statute ... an appeal does lie i......