State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 11 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56769,No. 2,56769,2 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 179 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Virgil MARTIN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
John J. Cosgrove, Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant; Paul T. Miller, Executive Director, Willard B. Bunch, Chief Defender, Kansas City, of counsel.
A jury found appellant guilty of the crime of assault with intent to rob with malice aforethought, Section 559.180, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and the court assessed punishment at three years' confinement.
Factually, it appears that on September 3, 1970, Mr. and Mrs. James Hardin were inside their cleaning establishment which they had operated in Kansas City for more than thirty years. Appellant, whom Mr. Hardin had known 'for years,' and another entered the shop. Appellant's mouth was bleeding and he was holding a handkerchief over it. Mr. Hardin commented, 'I notice you are bleeding at the mouth * * * what can I do for you fellows?' He saw appellant turn to the other man and say something in a low voice. The other man then said, 'We want your money . . .' as he pulled out a gun. Mr. Hardin answered, 'Why, you boys don't want to do that' and to appellant, 'I know you . . ..' As Mr. Hardin backed away, the other man shot him in his wrist and Mr. Hardin fell into a stack of boxes. As he crawled to safety behind the counter, he was shot at two more times before the two men fled from the shop. Both Mr. and Mrs. Hardin as well as one of their customers identified appellant as one of the participants. Appellant testified that he came into the shop as a customer only by chance at the time the second man attempted the armed robbery.
First, appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling his objections to the following portions of the prosecution's closing argument: (a) '. . . So I suggest to you that in this case Virgil Martin (appellant) is the man who devised and planned and originated this robbery . . .; (2) 'That it was the shooting, the attempt to kill Mr. Hardin, was so obviosly deliberate, calm, the man was taking aim . . .'; (3) 'I suggest to you . . . that the proper, the reasonable conclusion from the evidence that you have heard, is that they intended to . . . This wasn't just a flurry of gunfire when they were surprised, it was an obvious and deliberate attempt to dispose of someone who could identify them . . .'; and, (4) 'I think that the evidence in this case supports that, they tried to kill Mr. Hardin and if they hadn't been so incredibly incompetent and inept they would have killed him and they would have killed Mrs. Hardin.'
The last statement was not objected to at trial and consequently is not reviewable. State v. Williams, Mo., 419 S.W.2d 49. In connection with the other three, appellant cites State v. Tiedt, 357 Mo. 115, 206 S.W.2d 524; State v. Baber, Mo., 297 S.W.2d 439; State v. Groves, Mo., 295 S.W.2d 169; and State v. Mobley, Mo., 369 S.W.2d 576. We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turley
...the objectionable statement is made or nothing is preserved for review. State v. Williams, 419 S.W.2d 49, 53 (Mo.1967); State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo.1972). However, even if the point had been preserved for review it is without merit. Furthermore, the granting or withholding of a......
-
State v. Henderson
...a ruling nor requested any other relief. Under these circumstances, this point was not preserved for appellate review. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180(1) (Mo.1972). Furthermore, the circuit attorney's remarks here were not such as to have impaired defendant's substantive rights under R......
-
State v. Lasiter, 10477
...out in a crowd like a sore thumb." No objection was made to either remark and the matter has not been preserved. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180(1) (Mo.1972); State v. Barron, 465 S.W.2d 523, 529(9) The judgment is affirmed. All of the Judges concur. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all r......
-
State v. Garner, 15498
...to appellate review of matters arising from closing argument of counsel. State v. Hayes, 624 S.W.2d 16, 19-20 (Mo.1981); State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo.1972). Consequently, appellant's complaint about the prosecutor's first and third comments could be considered, if at all, only i......