State v. McCrady, 52298
| Decision Date | 12 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52298,52298,1 |
| Citation | 416 S.W.2d 175 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert McCRADY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Edward L. Downs, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Cape Girardeau, for respondent.
Floyd McBride, St. Louis, for appellant.
By amended information alleging three prior felony convictions defendant was charged with attempting to bribe a public official, a police officer of the City of St. Louis. Sections 558.080 and 558.010. 1 Defendant admitted, and the court found, that he had been convicted of three prior felonies, sentenced and subsequently placed on probation therefor. A jury found him guilty as charged. The court assessed his punishment and sentenced him to imprisonment for two years. Sections 556.280 and 558.080. He was represented by counsel in the trial court, and is represented in this court by other counsel who has filed a brief in his behalf.
There is no contention that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction; hence, a brief summary will suffice. On the evening of January 14, 1966, police officers Alfred Miller and Allen Montgomery of the Metropolitan St. Louis Police Department, in a marked police car, observed defendant, driving an Oldsmobile, violate a traffic law of the City of St. Louis; they followed defendant for about two blocks, and stopped and arrested him for the moving traffic violation. Officer Miller wrote out a summons and handed it to defendant; as defendant took the summons he dropped five dollars in the officer's hand and said: 'Here, Officer, tear up your copies of the tickets.' Whereupon, the officer returned the money and arrested defendant for attempting to bribe a police officer.
The first point briefed by defendant is that the court was without jurisdiction to try this case, and that all proceedings, including the judgment, are void, because the case was tried on an amended information without leave having been granted the state to amend.
An information charging defendant with the offense of attempting to bribe a public official was filed January 21, 1966; the amended information charging the same offense and alleging three prior felony convictions was filed February 23, five days before trial date, February 28, 1966. The record does not show that leave was sought or granted to file the amended information.
Criminal Rule 24.02, V.A.M.R., provides that the court may permit an information to be amended at any time before verdict if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of defendant are not prejudiced. See also: § 545.300.
Defendant made no objection to the filing of the amended information at any time; he announced ready for trial without objection. The sole effect of the amendment was to allege the prior felony convictions. He had notice of the amendment for, before any evidence was offered, he admitted its allegations that he had been convicted, sentenced and placed on probation for three prior felonies. No additional or different offense was charged by the amended information, and no rights of defendant are shown to have been prejudiced. State v. Crow, Mo., 388 S.W.2d 817, 820(3); State v. Kelly, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 602, 606(10). Furthermore, it is presumed that the amended information was filed with leave. State v. Colbart, Mo., 411 S.W.2d 92, 95(6).
Defendant's second point is that the court erred in failing to dismiss the amended information, because it was duplicitous in that it charged him with three separate crimes. The three 'crimes' to which he has reference are: (1) violation of a traffic ordinance of the City of St. Louis, (2) attempting to bribe a public official, and (3) '' The cases he cites holding that an information must apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation against him in plain, clear, distinct language stating the essential elements of the charge, 2 and those cases holding that, subject to a few exceptions, separate, distinct offenses cannot be charged in the same count of an information without rendering it bad for duplicity, 3 are not in point, because the information does not charge him with three separate crimes. The information charges him in plain, clear language with one offense: that of attempting to bribe the police officer by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ward, 54480
...offense was charged by the amended information and no rights of the defendant are shown to have been prejudiced. State v. McCrady (Mo.Sup.) 416 S.W.2d 175, 177; State v. Crow (Mo.Sup.) 388 S.W.2d 817, The endorsement of additional witnesses was in compliance with Rule 24.17, V.A.M.R., after......
-
State v. Mucie
...charges were not presented to the trial court in the motion for new trial, they are not preserved for appellate review. State v. McCrady, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 175, 177(4); State v. Nolan, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 815, Appellant argues that the admission in evidence of the uterus and fetal parts served no......
-
State v. Lane
...the trial court " permitted" the filing in accordance with Rule 24.02.' " State v. Colbart,411 S.W.2d 92, 95 (Mo.1967); State v. McCrady, 416 S.W.2d 175 (Mo.1967). During oral argument, counsel for defendant stated that while he does not waive his fifth point (The court erred in overruling ......
-
State v. Nolan
...point was not assigned as error in defendant's motion for new trial, and the issue is not preserved for appellate review. State v. McCrady, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 175, 177. Defendant's second point is that his oral statements were erroneously admitted into evidence because there was no testimony '......