State v. Johnson
Decision Date | 12 May 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 43052,No. 1,43052,1 |
Citation | 248 S.W.2d 654 |
Parties | STATE v. JOHNSON |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Sheldon P. Sandler, Kansas City, for appellant.
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Jack Fleischaker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Upon a trial before a jury defendant Nelson Johnson was convicted of robbery in the first degree. In accordance with the jury's verdict he was sentenced to five years imprisonment in the state penitentiary. After his motion for new trial had been overruled he appealed here and filed his bill of exceptions. He has filed no brief in this court. Upon this appeal we therefore consider the assignments made in the defendant's motion for new trial and examine the record proper.
From the testimony introduced upon the trial the jury could have found: That early on Thanksgiving morning, 1950, one McKinzey, night manager and bartender at The Peanut Bar, 5000 Main Street, Kansas City, Missouri, left the premises by the front door and locked it; he was then accompanied by Mineola Hayes and Herman Brooks, both of whom were also employees of the Bar; that they then walked to McKinzey's car which was parked near an alley behind the Bar; as McKinzey was unlocking his car three men (one of whom was defendant) stepped from behind some nearby bushes, held their guns upon the three employees, and one of the three armed men said, 'This is a hold-up', and that they wanted the money inside the Peanut Bar. Brooks ran but was caught by one of the armed men and returned to the group;
Two of the armed men compelled McKinzey to go with them to the front door of the Bar, open it, and the three men then entered the Bar. Brooks, Mrs. Hayes and the third armed man were then admitted into the building through the rear door. While a gun was held upon him McKinzey was ordered to and did open a larger safe from which $2,000.00 was taken by the armed men; and McKinzey was then compelled to open a smaller safe behind the bar from which $80.00 or $90.00 was taken. During the entire hold-up Mrs. Hayes and Brooks and McKinzey were always held at the point of the guns. After McKinzey had unlocked the two safes and the money had been taken, McKinzey was locked in the 'walk-in cooler'. Brooks and Mrs. Hayes were then forced to lie on the floor. After cautioning their victims to remain quiet, the three armed men left by the rear door.
Defendant Johnson was arrested in Texas on March 11, 1951. He was identified both before and at the trial by both McKinzey and by Mrs. Mineola Hayes. Both were cross-examined at great length with respect to their identification of defendant. The defense was an alibi.
The defendant's motion for new trial makes the assignments, (1) that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the law and the evidence, (2) that upon all the evidence the trial court should have directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, (3) that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Officer Haupt as to certain statements made to Haupt by the accused, (4) that the trial court erred in permitting certain cross-examination of defendant's alibi witnesses, and (5) that the court erred in permitting certain argument made by the state's counsel in his closing argument to the jury.
The assignments in defendant's motion for new trial that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence and against the law and the evidence does not comply with the statute and presents nothing for our consideration. Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., State v. Courtney, 356 Mo. 531, 202 S.W.2d 72; State v. Bell, 359 Mo. 785, 223 S.W.2d 469.
Defendant's assignments 3 and 4 in his new trial motion that the state's evidence was not sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury is without any merit whatever. The above set out testimony of the witnesses McKinzey and Hayes clearly establish that defendant was one of three men who drew and held guns on McKinzey and the other two employees of The Peanut Bar, that under threats that they were 'going to blow...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Whitaker
...in a motion for new trial. State v. Beaghler, Mo.Sup., 18 S.W.2d 423, 427; State v. Pittman, Mo.Sup., 221 S.W.2d 163; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 654; State v. Quilling, The judgment is affirmed. BOHLING and BARRETT, CC., concur. PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion by STOCKARD, C., ......
-
State v. Thompson
...246 S.W. 883. Certainly, judged in this light, there was ample evidence to support every element required by Sec. 560.120. State v. Johnson, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 654; State v. Johnson, Mo., 286 S.W.2d Defendant next urges that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice of the jury: 'eng......
-
State v. Weed
...on its admissibility. State v. Robinson, 117 Mo. 649, 23 S.W. 1066; State v. Richardson, 340 Mo. 680, 102 S.W.2d 653; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 654. Moreover, instruction No. 3 told the jury: 'The Court instructs the jury that the evidence introduced as to other transactions, if......
-
State v. Sheard
...evidence', State v. Gaddy, supra; State v. McHarness, Mo.Sup., 255 S.W.2d 826; State v. Politte, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 366; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 654, 'The verdict is against the weight of the evidence', State v. Rohman, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 69; State v. Burks, supra ; State v.......