State v. Rennert, 58065
| Decision Date | 14 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 58065,58065,1 |
| Citation | 514 S.W.2d 579 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ray James RENNERT, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., David Robards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Hill, McMullin & Wilson, Kansas City, for appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Ray James Rennert was convicted by a jury of murder, first degree. His punishment was assessed at life imprisonment, and sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. § 559.010, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. (Appeal taken August 3, 1972; jurisdiction retained pursuant to order April 9, 1973.)
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction; and the evidence, including a confession in his own handwriting, would permit the jury reasonably to find: that on November 11, 1971, in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, Ray James Rennert deliberately and premeditatedly killed Jeannie Mattia LaScalzo, a friend with whom he had been intimate and shooting drugs for three or four days, by strangling her with a stocking tied around her neck and double knotted in back, as charged in the indictment and submitted to the jury by Instruction No. 3. State v. Sturdivan, 497 S.W.2d 139 (Mo.1973).
Appellant charges that the court erred (I) in giving Instruction No. 10 on flight, asserting that it ; and (II) 'in receiving evidence that during the autopsy of the victim male spermatoza (sic) was found in her rectum, as it tended to prove a crime with which appellant was not charged.'
Neither of these contentions was preserved for review. See Rules 27.20(a), 28.01, 28.02, and 70.02, V.A.M.R.
With respect to Instruction No. 10, the record shows that defendant made only a general objection at the presubmission instruction conference. In his motion for new trial, he alleged only that the court failed to give a 'proper' instruction on the law of flight without stating how the given instruction was defective or improper. No argument was presented to the trial court with respect to the instruction when the new trial motion was argued. In these circumstances, defendant gave the trial court no opportunity to pass on the allegation of error he would now present to this court. State v. Bryant, 361 Mo. 318, 234 S.W.2d 584, 586--587(9) (1950).
With respect to the evidence question, the record shows that in pretrial conference defendant sought to have such evidence ruled inadmissible, and the State urged its admissibility a part of the res gestae. The court overruled the pretrial objection and indicated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rollie
...pro se brief, no specific objection was made concerning instructions upon trial or in appellant's motion for new trial. See State v. Rennert, 514 S.W.2d 579 (Mo.1974); State v. Young, 534 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App.1976); Rule Any alleged error upon failure to comply with Rule 20.03 must be reviewe......
-
State v. Vivone
...evidence is strong, the sufficiency of such evidence is undisputed, and the accused has confessed to the crime. State v. Rennert, 514 S.W.2d 579, 580[3] (Mo. 1974). That is the situation here. Defendant repeatedly told police officers that he killed Demster. He made a similar confession to ......
-
State v. Vivone
...evidence is strong, the sufficiency of such evidence is undisputed, and the accused has confessed to the crime. State v. Rennert, 514 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Mo.1974). That is the situation here. Defendant repeatedly told police officers that he killed Demster. He made a similar confession to his ......
-
State v. Johnson, 40046
...Appellant made no objection at trial and therefore has no basis for any claim of error by the trial court. State v. Rennert, 514 S.W.2d 579, 580 (Mo.1974). In similar situations, courts have held a denial of a motion in limine an insufficient basis for a claim of error when there was no tim......