State v. Morgan, 37666
| Decision Date | 18 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 37666,37666 |
| Citation | 546 S.W.2d 207 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven MORGAN, Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, Joseph W. Warzycki, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Raymond A. Bruntrager, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
A jury found defendant Steven Morgan guilty of second degree burglary and pursuant to the verdict the trial court sentenced defendant to two years' imprisonment.
Defendant has appealed contending the trial court erred (a) in permitting the state to amend its information at trial, (b) by denying a mistrial when the state asked the victim if he had been burglarized before and (c) by not fully interrogating a juror who had asked to talk to the court.
The state's evidence showed James Beck's store was burglarized and that police had arrested defendant as he crawled out a window. Defendant denied he had been in the store but was across the street when apprehended.
The original burglary information had been amended at trial by adding after defendant's name the words 'acting with another.' He contends this amendment required him to defend against the acts of other, unidentified persons. A comparable amendment was challenged in State v. West, 484 S.W.2d 191(4, 5) (Mo.1972). The court denied the challenge, declaring the original and amended informations each charged defendant as principal, citing Rule 24.02, VAMR and § 556.170, VAMS. Here, as in West, there is no factual ground of prejudice. This, because the defense was that he had not entered the store. He has not shown this defense was affected by the amendment.
Defendant further contends the amendment entitled him to another preliminary hearing. Since there was no change in the offense charged, i.e., second degree burglary, another preliminary hearing was not required. Johnson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 73(3) (Mo.1972).
Defendant next contends the trial court should have declared a mistrial when state's counsel asked the victim how many times his store had been burglarized. The court sustained defendant's objection, the witness did not answer and the subject was dropped. The question was irrelevant but not so prejudicial to defendant we can say the trial court abused its discretion in not granting the drastic remedy of a mistrial. Compare State v. Stapleton, 518 S.W.2d 292(8) (Mo.1975), and Kansas City v. LaRose, 524 S.W.2d 112(19--21) (Mo.1975).
During trial a juror asked to speak to the court. The juror denied on inquiry that she wanted to discuss anything about her 'physical being or anything like that.' The court asked her to be seated and denied defense counsel's motion to inquire further about her reasons. Defense counsel could have but failed to pursue his remedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers, 40039
...than the appellate court to evaluate the prejudicial effect of the occurrence initiating the request for a mistrial. State v. Morgan, 546 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App.1977). The reviewing court, in order to hold that a failure to grant mistrial was a reversible error, must conclude as a matter of law......
-
State v. Wilkerson
...in concert with another" did not substantially change the information. State v. West, 484 S.W.2d 191, 195 (Mo.1972); State v. Morgan, 546 S.W.2d 207, 208-209 (Mo.App.1977). As for the prejudice of which the statute and rule speak, the test of prejudice is whether a defense under the charge ......
-
Woods v. McSwain, 4:12-cv-01965-JAR
...either in the Motion for New Trial or during the Sentencing Hearing when the trial court judge took up his Motion. State v. Morgan, 546 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977). At most, the trial court had hearsay upon hearsay of possible juror misconduct. Furthermore, such allegations of juror......
-
State v. Mick, WD
...appellant admits the nature of the offenses does not change by amending an information by adding "acting with another." State v. Morgan, 546 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Mo.App.1977). This evidence did not charge him with another crime, nor did it alter his defense, i.e. that he did not commit the crim......