State v. Hunter, 57252
| Decision Date | 11 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57252,No. 2,57252,2 |
| Citation | 499 S.W.2d 787 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clarence HUNTER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
James L. McMullin, Kansas City, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Clarence Hunter has appealed from the judgment entered pursuant to jury verdict whereby he was found guilty of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years. The notice of appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972. Appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. It is sufficient to say that a jury reasonably could find that at the time and place alleged in the information, appellant, acting with two others, robbed Wallace Young of money and property.
Appellant first contends that the verdict directing instruction was erroneous because it 'failed to require a finding of an essential element of the crime charged--the means by which the victim was put in fear.'
The information charged robbery in the first degree with a dangerous and deadly weapon, a knife, but the State elected to submit, as it was entitled to do, robbery in the first degree in violation of § 560.120, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., without reference to the use of a deadly weapon. State v. Gabriel, 342 Mo. 519, 116 S.W.2d 75 (1938); State v. Spencer, 486 S.W.2d 433 (Mo.1972). The contention here presented was expressly ruled in State v. Mares, 486 S.W.2d 215 (Mo.1972). There it was contended that the verdict directing instruction submitting robbery in the first degree was erroneous because it 'failed to require a finding of * * * (the) means by which the victim was put in fear.' It was noted that the instruction in that case was in the form of Instruction 7.60 of the Missouri Bar Association Draft Pattern Criminal Instructions and that one of the purposes of those instructions was to eliminate unnecessary material and to submit only the ultimate issue to the jury. It was then held that the ultimate issue was the taking of the property by putting the victim of the robbery in fear of some immediate injury to his person, and that the instruction which submitted the issue of placing in fear in substantially the language of the statute was sufficient. Appellant's contention is without merit.
Appellant next asserts that the court erred in refusing his request for a mistrial when the prosecuting attorney 'for the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Healey
...remarks of counsel are so prejudicial as to necessitate a mistrial rests largely within the trial court's discretion, State v. Hunter, 499 S.W.2d 787, 788(3) (Mo.1973), and the appellate court will not interfere unless there has been an abuse of discretion which prejudices defendant. State ......
-
State v. Crockett
...was sufficient to support a charge of first degree robbery, without reference to the use of a deadly weapon.' See also State v. Hunter, 499 S.W.2d 787 (Mo.1973). Accordingly, defendant was not so inadequately advised of the crime with which he was charged as to prevent him from adequately p......
-
State v. Norton, 47605
...remarks of counsel are so prejudicial as to necessitate a mistrial rests largely within the trial court's discretion, State v. Hunter, 499 S.W.2d 787, 788 (Mo.1973), and the appellate court will not interfere unless there has been an abuse of discretion which prejudices defendant." State v.......
-
State v. Smith, 38010
...Whether closing argument by counsel necessitates declaration of a mistrial is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Hunter, 499 S.W.2d 787, 788(3) (Mo.1973). A mistrial is a drastic remedy and should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances where prejudice can be removed in ......