State v. Hill, 50462
| Decision Date | 10 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 50462,50462 |
| Citation | 714 S.W.2d 687 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eddie HILL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Deborah L. Stockhausen, Office of the Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Morris, III, Office of the Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant, Eddie Hill, was convicted, after a jury trial, of robbery first degree, kidnapping and armed criminal action. The jury recommended sentences of imprisonment of fifteen years, ten years and ten years respectively. The trial court set aside the armed criminal action conviction and discharged defendant on that count. Defendant was then sentenced to terms of imprisonment of fifteen years for the robbery and ten years for the kidnapping, to be concurrent with each other, but consecutive to a sentence imposed for an unrelated conviction. This appeal follows. We affirm.
Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The victim was getting into her car in the City of St. Louis when defendant forced his way into the automobile by threatening her with what appeared to be a weapon. He ordered her to drive away and later robbed her of jewelry and money before he released her.
The evidence to support the kidnapping and robbery convictions was extremely strong. It became unassailable when defendant testified that he was guilty of the robbery and kidnapping and that he had used a toy gun as the weapon.
In his sole point on appeal, defendant asseverates error in the trial court's failure to sustain his challenge for cause to Venireperson Thomas. The following excerpts from the voir dire examination provide the basis for defendant's claim:
An accused must be afforded a full panel of qualified jurors before he is required to expend his allotted peremptory challenges. State v. Stewart, 692 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Mo.1985). In determining the qualifications of a prospective juror, the trial court is accorded wide discretion. State v. Hemphill, 669 S.W.2d 633, 635 (Mo.App.1984). The trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause will not be disturbed on appeal unless it constitutes "a clear abuse of discretion and real probability of injury to the complaining party." State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 422 (Mo. banc 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 908, 104 S.Ct. 262, 78 L.Ed.2d 246 (1983).
In determining when a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wheat
...for cause unless it constitutes a clear abuse of discretion and a real probability of injury to the complaining party. State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986); see also Lingar, 726 S.W.2d at The record of venireman Kaver's responses to questioning demonstrates no equivocation. He s......
-
State v. Edwards, 52176
...An accused is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors before he is required to expend his peremptory challenges. State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986). While a trial court's refusal to sustain a valid challenge for cause constitutes reversible error, it is clear that the tri......
-
State v. Gamble, 16206
...whether a challenge for cause should be sustained, a trial court judges each case on its own particular facts. State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986). The responses of Mrs. Price, considered as a whole, established her ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The trial court did ......
-
State v. Wilson, 54624
...In addition, the trial court is granted wide discretion in determining the qualification of prospective jurors. State v. Hill, 714 S.W.2d 687, 689 (Mo.App.1986). We will not disturb the trial court's decision unless there is a clear abuse of discretion and the real probability of injury. Id......