State v. Huddleston
| Decision Date | 15 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | 35985 |
| Citation | 123 S.W.2d 183 |
| Parties | STATE v. HUDDLESTON |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
R. F Baynes, of New Madrid, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Tyre W. Burton, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Appellant, Huddleston, appealed from a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree. He received a punishment of fifteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The crime was alleged to have been committed in New Madrid county, Missouri, on the second day of September, 1936. On a change of venue the case was transferred to Pemiscot county, where a trial was had on April 2, 1937. The evidence disclosed that ill-feeling had developed between appellant and the deceased, one Guy Draper, over some business transactions. Appellant was in the fish business. Deceased lived in a house-boat near the fish stand of appellant. The evidence disclosed that appellant had made numerous threats against the deceased and that he shot deceased twice as he was passing by the fish stand. One bullet struck Draper in the head and another entered the body near the heart. Death followed within a few minutes. Appellant pleaded self-defense as a justification for the shooting.
We have examined appellant's motion for new trial. It does not preserve any question for our review. In the first two assignments of error appellant stated that the verdict was against the evidence, against the weight of the evidence and against the law, and also that the verdict was for the wrong party. In the third assignment appellant complained of a ruling of the trial court on an objection to the opening statement of the prosecuting attorney. No reason was assigned why this ruling was erroneous. Assignment number four reads as follows: 'The court erred in admitting incompetent irrelevant and immaterial evidence offered by the State over the objections and exception of defendant at the time and which said evidence, together with the objections and reasons is as follows:' This is followed, without comment, by excerpts from the evidence of ten or more witnesses. No reason was assigned why the rulings of the trial court were erroneous. All of the above assignments are too indefinite to preserve any point for our review. This court in State v. Majors, 329 Mo. 148, 44 S.W.2d 163, loc. cit. 166 (5), ruled that an assignment, similar to number four quoted above, was insufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial