State v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 12 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 42163,No. 1,42163,1 |
| Citation | 236 S.W.2d 314 |
| Parties | STATE v. PIERCE |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Robert L. Hyder, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ASCHEMEYER, Commissioner.
This appeal is from a conviction of statutory rape, Sec. 4393, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 4393. The jury assessed appellant's punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The appellant has filed no brief but it is our duty to examine the record proper for error and to examine also the bill of exceptions for those errors assigned in appellant's motion for a new trial. Sec. 4150, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 4150; State v. Jones, Mo.Sup., 227 S.W.2d 713, 716; State v. Montgomery, Mo.Sup., 223 S.W.2d 463, 465. Our examination of errors assigned in the motion for a new trial is limited to those assignments which meet the requirements of particularity specified in Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 4125. State v. Pippin, 357 Mo. 456, 209 S.W.2d 132; State v. Jones, supra.
Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. The complaining witness was twelve years of age when the offense was committed. Her testimony is clear and definite. It is corroborated by medical evidence, by some of the testimony of appellant's wife and by appellant's confession of guilt which was offered in evidence both in the form of a signed written statement and a wire recording. Two officers of the Kansas City Police Department testified that appellant's confessions were made by him voluntarily after he had been advised of his rights and that appellant was not coerced, threatened or offered any inducement to make his statements. Appellant testified, on the other hand, that he was subjected to prolonged questioning by the police and signed a statement admitting guilt and made a wire recording (in which such admissions were repeated) solely to escape physical violence which had been threatened. The trial court admitted both confessions in evidence and, in so doing, acted in the proper exercise of discretion. State v. Gibilterra, 342 Mo. 577, 116 S.W.2d 88, 94.
There are four assignments of error in the motion for a new trial. Assignment 1 charges error in the admission of 'illegal, immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent evidence offered by the State.' Assignment 2 charges error in refusing to admit 'competent, material, proper and relevant testimony offered by the defendant.' These assignments are too broad and general to comply with Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 4125, and present nothing for our review. State v. Courtney, 356 Mo. 531, 202 S.W.2d 72; State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 83 S.W.2d 98; State v. Harris, 337 Mo. 1052, 87 S.W.2d 1026. Assignment 3 charges error in the refusal to give Instructions A, B and C at the request of appellant. No reason is assigned why it was error to refuse these instructions. This assignment also is too general to preserve any question for appellate review. State v. Grubbs, 358 Mo. 323, 214 S.W.2d 435, 437; State v. Goodwin, 333 Mo. 168, 61 S.W.2d 960. Nevertheless, we have examined these instructions and find no error in their refusal. Instruction A defined 'reasonable doubt' but Instruction 10 given by the court correctly defined this expression. Instruction C is on the burden of proof but this subject was adequately covered by Instruction 10. Instruction B dealt with appellant's admissions or confessions and instruction the jury to disregard any of appellant's statements which were procured by 'coercion, threats or fear.' Instruction 8 given by the court instructed the jury fully on their duty to disregard any of appellant's statements which they believed were not made voluntarily but which were induced by fear or by a hope of 'reward of leniency.' It is proper to refuse to give instructions the subject matter of which has been adequately covered by other instructions given to the jury. State v. Aitkens, 352 Mo. 746, 179 S.W.2d 84, 90; State v. Meidle, Mo.Sup., 202 S.W.2d 79, 82.
The fourth and final assignment of error is as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Burnett
...necessary for us to examine the assignments of error in his motion for a new trial. Supreme Court Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S.; State v. Pierce, Mo.Sup., 236 S.W.2d 314. The evidence shows that Abe Levitt was shot and killed by appellant while appellant was attempting to perpetrate a robbery. Th......
-
State v. Barnett, 48054
...S.W.2d 526, 530. And the trial court exercises a considerable discretion in passing upon the admissibility of a confession. State v. Pierce, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 314. We have concluded that the court did not err in admitting the confession, and that the evidence did not establish that the confes......
-
State v. Bridges
...333 S.W.2d 279, 285; State v. Smith, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 845, 851, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 910, 79 S.Ct. 237, 3 L.Ed.2d 231; State v. Pierce, Mo., 236 S.W.2d 314; State v. Sanford, 354 Mo. 998, 193 S.W.2d 37, 38, certiorari denied 328 U.S. 873, 66 S.Ct. 1373, 90 L.Ed. 1642. The defendant was......
-
State v. Tebbe, 21772
...Mo. 615, 148 S.W.2d 1024, 1026; State v. Marlin, Mo.Sup., 177 S.W.2d 485; State v. Kimbrough, 350 Mo. 609, 166 S.W.2d 1077; State v. Pierce, Mo.Sup., 236 S.W.2d 314. Assignments 4 and 5, relating to the giving and refusal of certain numbered instructions, are too general to preserve anythin......