State v. Remspecher, 37503
| Decision Date | 27 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 37503,37503 |
| Citation | 542 S.W.2d 24 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William REMSPECHER, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, James C. Jones, Charles S. Stone, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., James F. Booth, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, § 560.175(1), RSMo 1969. Having been found to have committed a prior felony by the court, he was sentenced under the Second Offender Act to five years in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Three points are relied upon by defendant on this appeal to reverse the judgment of the lower court.
1. Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to produce a transcript of his prior trial to use in cross-examination of the witnesses against him. A motion to produce the transcript was filed on the morning of the second trial without any prior notice. This motion was not timely. State v. Ambus, 522 S.W.2d 306, 310(1) (Mo.App.1975).
2. During the course of the trial evidence was allowed over objection concerning the sale or exchange of the automobile by the defendant to a company engaged in the sale of motor vehicles. It is contended by defendant that this is error because such evidence tended to prove the commission of a crime other than that with which the defendant was charged. This, however, was part of the chain of evidence used to trace the automobile after it had been sold to an innocent purchaser under a false serial number back to the defendant. It was one of a number of circumstances which together constituted a continuous transaction. It tended to prove criminal intent, plan and design, and hence was admissible. State v. Jackson, 519 S.W.2d 551, 558(19) (Mo.App.1975).
3. Defendant charges that the trial court erred when it permitted redirect examination of a witness on matters not previously covered in direct examination and went beyond the scope of the cross-examination. The scope and extent to which redirect examination of a witness shall be permitted to go...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ealey, WD
...State v. Schneider, 585 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Mo.App.1979), citing State v. Walden, 490 S.W.2d 391, 393(5) (Mo.App.1973), and State v. Remspecher, 542 S.W.2d 24 (Mo.App.1976). Absent a showing of prejudice resulting from such exercise of discretion, it will not be disturbed upon appeal, State v.......
-
State v. Schneider, 30115
... ... State v. Walden, 490 S.W.2d 391, 393(5) (Mo.App.1973)." State v. Remspecher, 542 S.W.2d 24, 25(3, 4) (Mo.App.1976). No abuse of discretion has been demonstrated here ... Appellant finally complains that his ... ...
-
State v. Davidson, 21378
...a defendant was permitted to cross-examine the witness on matters raised on redirect may also be considered. See State v. Remspecher, 542 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Mo.App. E.D.1976). Based upon Defendant's opening statement, which was later confirmed by his closing argument, he introduced the evidence......
-
Callicoat v. Acuff Homes, Inc.
...a witness and unless an abuse of that discretion is established, any ruling thereon will not be disturbed on review. State v. Remspecher, 542 S.W.2d 24, 25 (Mo.App.1976). In addition to having failed to make a proper offer of proof, the Callicoats have failed to establish that the trial cou......