State v. Martin, 63069

Decision Date11 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 1,No. 63069,63069,1
Citation633 S.W.2d 80
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clarence MARTIN, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Henry Robertson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Kelly Klopfenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ROLLIE R. BALDWIN, Special Judge.

Appellant, Clarence Martin, was convicted by a jury of forcible rape and burglary in the first degree. The jury assessed punishment at ten years for the rape and five years for the burglary. Pursuant to §§ 558.016 and 557.036.3, RSMo 1978, as amended, the trial court found that the appellant was a persistent and dangerous offender and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for the forcible rape and ten years for the burglary in the first degree with the sentences to run concurrently.

The appellant presented no evidence. The State's evidence however, was sufficient to establish that the appellant, who the victim had never seen before, entered the rear kitchen door of the victim's apartment, about 9:30 P. M. on December 26, 1979, and armed with a knife, seven to eight inches in length with a four to five inch blade, forced sexual intercourse upon her on the kitchen floor.

The appellant first contends that the knife used was not a "deadly weapon" as defined in § 556.061.9, RSMo 1978, and therefore the trial court erred in overruling appellant's Motion For Directed Verdict And Judgment Of Acquittal and erred in submitting instructions numbered six and seven in that the indictment and instructions contained the element that the rape was perpetrated by use of a "deadly weapon".

Section 556.061.9, RSMo 1978, states:

"Deadly weapon means any firearm, loaded or unloaded, or any weapon from which a shot, readily capable of producing death or serious physical injury may be discharged, or a switchblade knife, dagger, billy, blackjack, or metal knuckles."

The issue in this case is whether there was substantial evidence presented from which the jury could have found that the instrument used by the appellant and described as a knife was a dagger and a deadly weapon as defined by § 556.061.9, RSMo 1978. Webster's New Universal Dictionary, 1976, defines a dagger as, "1. a short weapon with a sharp point used for stabbing; a poniard."

The appellant has brought the Court's attention to § 571.010.9, RSMo, effective September 29, 1981, which, although not directly applicable to this case, does define the term knife as follows:

"Knife means any, dagger, dirk, stiletto or bladed hand instrument that is readily capable of inflicting serious physical injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person. For purposes of this chapter, "knife" does not include any ordinary pocket knife with no blade more than four inches in length."

It is very clear that the legislature has now stated that "knife " under some circumstances and for some purposes means "dagger ".

Logic is repelled by a contention that a knife, seven to eight inches long with a four to five inch blade, can never be considered to be a dagger. Certainly some knives under some circumstances may be used as, and may reasonably be considered to be daggers and deadly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Lee
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 24, 1992
    ...method submitted in the information and the method submitted in the instruction. 3 Crossman, 464 S.W.2d at 42, see also State v. Martin, 633 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Mo.1982). In sum, instructing upon one form of an offense after the information charges a different form of the offense does not requir......
  • State v. Chowning, s. 17392
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1993
    ...define the term "dagger." A dagger has been judicially recognized as a short weapon with a sharp point used for stabbing. State v. Martin, 633 S.W.2d 80, 81 (Mo.1982). There is no limitation on the length of the blade to qualify an instrument as a dagger and therefore a deadly weapon. State......
  • State v. Brigman, WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 12, 1989
    ...new and distinct from the offense alleged, is submitted to the jury. State v. King, 747 S.W.2d 264, 275 (Mo.App.1988); see also State v. Martin, 633 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Mo. banc 1982). Defendant Brigman was found guilty of the offense of forcible rape. He was charged with that same offense. Ther......
  • State v. Harrell, SD 30312.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 2011
    ...821–22. In reaching its decision in Payne, the Western District considered the definition of “dagger” used by our high court in State v. Martin, 633 S.W.2d 80, 82 (Mo. banc 1982)—a “short weapon with a sharp point used for stabbing”—but determined that “[w]hile the definition was practical ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT