State v. Pickens
| Decision Date | 05 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 35766,35766 |
| Citation | 527 S.W.2d 29 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oliver Glenn PICKENS, Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James C. Jones, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Blackmar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis finding the defendant guilty of Assault with Intent to Ravish with Malice Aforethought (§ 559.180 RSMo 1969). The jury was unable to agree on punishment and the trial court sentenced the appellant to a term of fifteen years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. (Rule 27.03, § 546.440 RSMo 1969). After a motion for new trial was filed, submitted without oral argument and overruled, this appeal followed.
Appellant (hereinafter the defendant) does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and it would serve no useful purpose to belabor this opinion with a recitation of the State's evidence, which if believed, as it obviously was, established the offense charged.
Defendant presents two Points Relied On in this Court for reversal of his conviction. The first is directed at some questions directed to the jury panel on voir dire and the overruling of defendant's motion that the jury panel be dismissed. The following are the questions and the colloquy which form the basis of defendant's contention that the jury panel should have been dismissed.
Let's proceed.
Defendant in the Argument portion of his brief states: 'During voir dire examination the Assistant Circuit Attorney made repeated referencs to newspaper articles concerning the high rate of acquittals of defendants in St. Louis County.' A careful search of the transcript on appeal reveals that the above quoted section of the voir dire is the only portion thereof contained in the transcript filed in this Court. While we might concur with the Assistant Circuit Attorney's remark that his question was ridiculous and might have been more artfully phrased, we conclude that the trial court sustained the defendant's objections to the line of inquiry and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's request that the jury panel be dismissed. The trial court has broad discretion in the conduct of voir dire examination of the jury and when that discretion is exercised it may only be interfered with where there is a clear and obvious abuse of its discretion. State v. Hawkins, 362 Mo. 152, 240 S.W.2d 688, 694(8) (1951). We find no evidence to support a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion and rule this point against defendant.
Defendant's second, and final Point, is that it was error for the trial court to overrule defendant's motion for mistrial after the Assistant Circuit Attorney inquired of the defendant on cross-examination whether he had become ill due to narcotics.
Defendant took the stand in his own defense and on direct examination testified that he arrived at work at 1453 Webster, the premises of the Holey Spiritual Church, on the morning of the 21st of May, 1973, at about 8:30 a.m. with another fellow, a friend of his whose name he did not know, other than he was called 'Sankey'. He worked until about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. when he left the job because he had become ill with an upset stomach from some donuts and chocolate milk given him by the man with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanders, 36897
...only in extraordinary circumstances when the prejudicial effect is so grievous that it can be removed by no other means. State v. Pickens, 527 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1975). Here, there was no prejudice to the defendant by the reference to the shotgun, since the fact that a shotgun was used in th......
-
State v. Proctor, 36717
...remark, did not abuse its discretion in failing to call for a mistrial. State v. Mullen, 528 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Pickens, 527 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1975). Third, even had the hearsay remark been admitted--which it was not--the effect of placing defendant's automobile at the scene......
-
State v. Hoyel
...prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way. State v. Jackson, 506 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.1974); 4 State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Pickens, 527 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Blockton, 526 S.W.2d 915 (Mo.App.1975). And the role of an appellate court is to determine whether the trial cour......
-
State v. Knapp
...examination, and we will interfere with the trial court's ruling only in the event of a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Pickens, 527 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1975). No abuse of discretion is apparent Defendant's final point on appeal concerns a remark during the prosecution's closing argu......