State v. Jones
Decision Date | 08 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 55873,55873,1 |
Citation | 462 S.W.2d 661 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur JONES, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Stahl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Dewey S. Godfrey, St. Louis, for appellant.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Arthur Jones has appealed from a jury conviction and court sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for illegal possession of marijuana.
The only point raised on this appeal is the alleged error of the trial court in not sustaining an objection to the circuit attorney's remarks in closing argument relating to defendant's failure to produce witnesses on his behalf. We find no error in the ruling of the court, which was made in this general factual background:
Eight police officers, accompanied by two police dogs, entered a pool hall in the City of St. Louis in which sixty black males were playing pool or standing around. One of the officers disconnected the jukebox and the pinball machine, announced that they were St. Louis police officers, and ordered the sixty to move over against the wall on one side of the room. Officers Happe and Kurlander observed Arthur Jones standing at the wall, with his hand in his pocket. They saw him take his hand out of his pocket 'rather abruptly' according to Kurlander, remove something from his pocket, place his hand by his side, and open his hand. Three manila envelopes fell from his hand to the floor at his feet. Officer Happe picked up the envelopes, examined the contents, found therein a green vegatable substance which upon subsequent laboratory examination proved to be marijuana. Jones was placed under arrest. Debris removed from the right and left pockets of his trousers, examined at the laboratory, contained dried leaf fragments of marijuana. Defendant did not testify and produced no witnesses in his behalf.
During the circuit attorney's final summation to the jury he made the following argument, the italicized portion of which appellant excepts to:
'(The record was read by the reporter).
Citing Rothschild v. Barck, 324 Mo. 1121, 26 S.W.2d 760; State v. Collins, 350 Mo. 291, 165 S.W.2d 647; State v. Houston, Mo.Sup., 451 S.W.2d 37, appellant claims that a party has no right to complain of the failure of the opponent to produce witnesses equally available to both parties; that there was a greater probability that the witnesses were available to the State than that defendant knew their names and addresses; that 'the witnesses were all known by the police and/or Circuit Attorney's Office as a result of the arrests and interviews at the time of the arrest'; that the prosecutor's argument allowed the jury to draw the inference that the testimony if offered would be unfavorable to defendant, or that it would constitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lang
...v. Paglino, 319 S.W.2d 613 (Mo.1958); State v. Costello, 415 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.1967); State v. Smith, 194 S.W.2d 905 (Mo.1946); State v. Jones, 462 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.1971). Such an objection as 'we object' does not preserve any question for review. The trial court must be given an opportunity to ......
-
State v. Simmons
...to rule upon an objection after hearing reasons for the exclusion. State v. Lang, 515 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo.1974); State v. Jones, 462 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo.1971). Moreover, it appears from the record that the consistent theory of objection, had the point been properly preserved, would have bee......
-
State v. Ponder, 21051
...objection identifies no specific flaw or impropriety in the question. In that respect, the objection is like the one in State v. Jones, 462 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo.1971), where the accused's lawyer said, "I object to that." The Supreme Court of Missouri held the objection insufficient to preser......
-
State v. Slankard, SD22581
...has been held insufficient to preserve any issue for appellate review. See State v. Lang, 515 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Mo. 1974); State v. Jones, 462 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo. 1971). Additionally, "[i]f evidence is improperly admitted, but other evidence before the court establishes essentially the same......