State v. Kimmins, 35192
| Decision Date | 24 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 35192,35192 |
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 381 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joe Calvin KIMMINS, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Herbert A. Kasten, Jr., James C. Jones, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Philip M. Koppe, Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Julian D. Cosentino, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of manslaughter and the subsequent judgment and sentence of 10 years confinement under the second offender act.
All of defendant's points on appeal deal with the closing argument of the prosecutor. No attack is made on the sufficiency of the evidence. Briefly stated the evidence indicates that defendant and a police officer were the victims of a robbery, setup but not perpetrated by the victim, John Sheppard. Both defendant and the police officer spent considerable time the same day and evening of the robbery looking for the robber and Sheppard. Defendant located Sheppard that night, advised the police officer of that fact, borrowed the policeman's gun, invited Sheppard out to a parking lot, discussed return of defendant's money and, upon Sheppard's statement that he could not return the money, defendant drew the gun from his waistband. A struggle ensued during which Sheppard, a drug addict, was shot twice in the head. Defendant contended the shooting was accidental.
The control of oral argument is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. An appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court abused its discretion to the prejudice of the defendant. State v. Tiedt,360 Mo. 594, 229 S.W.2d 582 (banc 1950) (8--11). In order for such arguments to constitute reversible error they must be 'plainly unwarranted and clearly injurious.' State v. Hutchinson, 458 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.banc 1970) (4). We do not find those under attack here to fall in that category.
The first argument attacked was what defendant labels a misinstruction by the prosecutor on the elements of manslaughter. We interpret the argument, taken as a whole, as a statement that the facts showed defendants conduct to be within the elements of manslaughter as contained in the court's instruction and not within the definition of accidental homicide given by the court. The prosecutor also argued about the difference between first degree murder (with which defendant was not charged) and second degree (with which he was) but clearly pointed out that first degree was not charged. The jury convicted of manslaughter. We can find no prejudice. State v. Nevils, 330 Mo. 831, 51 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blockton
...instruction. State v. Heather, 498 S.W.2d 300, 303 (Mo.App.1973); State v. Raspberry, 452 S.W.2d 169, 173 (Mo.1970); State v. Kimmins, 514 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Robinson, 516 S.W.2d 40, 44 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Stroud, 362 Mo. 124, 240 S.W.2d 111, 113 (1951); State v. Mi......
-
State v. Wilkerson
...to just live." It is generally held that control of argument rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Kimmins, 514 S.W.2d 381 (Mo.App.1974). Prosecutors are permitted wide latitude in arguing the necessity for law enforcement and the jurors' responsibility in that ......
-
State v. Long, 46536
...In order for such arguments to constitute reversible error, they must be plainly unwarranted and clearly injurious. State v. Kimmins, 514 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Mo.App.1974); State v. Hoskins, 569 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Williams, 588 S.W.2d 70, 74 (Mo.App.1979) (erroneously preju......
-
State v. Jones
...of counsel, and we will not reverse unless this discretion has been abused resulting in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Kimmins, 514 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Mo.App.1974)...." State v. Smith, 527 S.W.2d 731, 733 This is precisely what the prosecuting attorney did in that part of his closing ar......