State v. Morris, 54386
| Decision Date | 08 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54386,54386,2 |
| Citation | 454 S.W.2d 570 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Hubert Monroe MORRIS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Peter H. Ruger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Alan G. Kimbrell, Clayton, for appellant.
Hubert Monroe Morris appeals from a judgment sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of eighteen years in the custody of the Department of Corrections upon his conviction by a jury of the charge of first degree robbery. Sections 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. We affirm.
Defendant Morris does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction; hence, a brief statement of the facts will suffice. The state's evidence is as follows. Shortly after nine o'clock P.M., on March 7, 1968, two negro men, one armed with a revolver, entered the Quick Shop at 1923 North Hanley Road in St. Louis county, Missouri, pointed the gun at and threatened to shoot Jerome Link, and took from Link and Robert Murphy, employees in charge of the Quick Shop, approximately $200 and thirty cartons of cigarettes, property of their employer. Mr. Murphy identified defendant as one of the two robbers. Defendant was apprehended fleeing from the scene in an automobile a short distance from the Quick Shop and within a few minutes after the robbery.
Defendant did not testify. His witness, Lamar Houston, testified that he met defendant in front of a pool room in Kinloch near seven o'clock P.M., on a date he could not remember; that he and an acquaintance named Earl agreed to take defendant to St. Louis in Earl's car for $2; that en route to St. Louis they were stopped on St. Charles Rock Road by the police at about 7:15 or 7:30 P.M., and defendant was arrested.
Defendant briefs two points on appeal. The first is that the court erred in giving instruction number 3, an alibi instruction, because, he says: (1) it refers to alibi as a defense, whereas it is not a defense; (2) the word 'alibi' as used in the instruction has a connotation unfavorable to the defendant; and, (3) the effect of the word 'interposed' as used in the instruction is a disparaging comment on his evidence. For substantially the same instruction, see: State v. Mooring, Mo., 445 S.W.2d 303, at l.c. 307. The same attack made on the instruction in the instant case was made and rejected in State v. Coleman, Mo., 441 S.W.2d 46, at l.c. 52. We adhere to the reasons stated there for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State
...punishment at confinement for eighteen years. The judgment was affirmed by this court on June 8, 1970, in an opinion reported at 454 S.W.2d 570 (Mo.). On September 29, 1970, appellant filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26. After an evidentiary h......
-
Morris v. Wyrick, 74-1899
...needed to delay to get one more. One of Morris' robbery convictions which was on appeal was affirmed on June 8, 1970, State v. Morris, 454 S.W.2d 570 (Mo.1970), while Morris was not identified by the eyewitnesses to the instant crime until a police lineup was held on June 18, One other appe......
-
State v. Sockel
...Defendant also says 'shall acquit' ought to be stated instead of 'should acquit.' The use of 'until' has been approved in State v. Morris, Mo.Sup., 454 S.W.2d 570, 571; State v. Wiley, Mo.Sup., 442 S.W.2d 1, 2; see also State v. Reese,supra, 274 S.W.2d l.c. 308, where a similar claim about ......