State v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 11 February 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 49333,49333,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Wilbert RICHARDSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles R. Burt, Columbia, for appellant.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Frank P. Motherway, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
Upon a charge of murder in the second degree, James W. Richardson, age 19, had been found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The appellant's trial counsel timely filed a motion for a new trial setting forth, together with numerous subdivisions, sixteen specification of error. A large number of these specifications of error are so lacking in detailed particularity or in their failure to set forth the 'specific grounds or causes therefor' (S.Ct. Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R.) that they do not present reviewable questions. It is not necessary to again recite in detail these assignments and point out the particular respects in which they are deficient, the insufficiency of these and similar assignments is illustrated by the following list of cases. State v. Reed, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 426; State v. Miller, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 633; State v. Gray, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 642; State v. Howard, Mo., 360 S.W.2d 718. The appellant is not represented by counsel upon this appeal and for that reason the court considers all of the good and sufficient assignments of error in his motion for new trial (S.Ct. Rule 27.20) as well as those matters necessarily involved and reviewable by the court 'upon the record before it.' S.Ct. Rule 28.02.
Noting very briefly, the facts were that on Saturday, May 6, 1961, the appellant James Richardson worked until 5 o'clock. After work, according to his own account, he went home, ate, took a nap, and went to the home of a friend. About 7:30 he went to the 'Do Drop Inn' and there he danced and drank wine and beer until about 12:30. Then he went up on 'the Strip' and found a ride out to George Jones' '400 Club' south of Columbia. He arrived at the 400 Club about 1 o'clock and almost immediately had what he called 'an argument' with Curtis Hickam, but, he said, 'I don't remember what brought it on.' In the course of this argument, according to James, Hickam told Raymond Glasgow 'to get his pipe out of his car for him.' James' Uncle Sherman, age 24, intervened to stop the argument with Hickam, and then James said, 'I went back out to Glasgow and says, 'Why do you want to go get a pipe after me' and before he could say anything I hit him.' James stayed around the 400 Club awhile and asked Paul Walker for his gun because he was afraid 'Curt might get me with his pipe.' Walker gave James his gun, a semi-automatic .22 caliber, 9 shot revolver, and he caught another ride into town and returned to 'the Strip' about 3 o'clock in the morning.
And again according to the appellant, The coroner recovered '3 slugs' from the body of Gene Glasgow, two in the groin and one that severed the right femoral artery causing him to bleed to death, a fourth slug went through the right forearm. James says that he did not intend to kill Glasgow, but he doesn't know why he fired four shots.
These briefly narrated circumstances, favorably stated by the appellant incidentally, obviously support the lesser and included charge (V.A.M.S., Sec. 556.220; State v. Foster, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 892, 896) and finding of manslaughter. V.A.M.S., Sec. 559.020, 559.070, State v. Feltrop, Mo., 343 S.W.2d 36. It may be noted in passing that the evidence favorable to the state would have supported a conviction of murder in the second degree. Furthermore, since the appellant has been found guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter, he is in no position to complain of the instructions defining and hypothesizing murder in the second degree. State v. Colvin, 226 Mo. 446, 126 S.W. 448.
Also in these circumstances the objection to instruction 6 (voluntary and involuntary confession or statement) concerning 'an oral or written statement confessing his guilt of the crime charged' is not well taken. It may well be, as suggested by his motion, that in his statements to the police, both oral and written, the appellant has not in terms or technically 'confessed his guilt of any crime.' Nevertheless, he did relate the facts and, as indicated, even his favorable narration of the circumstances supports the finding of manslaughter. There is in fact no claim that the appellant's admissions or statements were involuntary and in these circumstances the instruction was not confusing or misleading. State v. Stidham, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 7.
The court instructed on self-defense, including the hypothesis that when the defendant shot Glasgow 'he had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that said Gene Glasgow was about to take his life or to do him some great personal injury.' The appellant's evidence of a battery immediately before the shooting was some evidence of provocation and required an instruction on manslaughter (State v. Smart, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 569), but the one given is the conventional self-defense instruction (State v. Robinson, Mo., 255 S.W.2d 798) and was not prejudicially erroneous in its failure to mention that Glasgow 'had already attacked this defendant causing him great personal injury.' State v. Bradford, 324 Mo. 695, 24 S.W.2d 993, is the case from which no doubt the instruction was taken. The phrase that the deceased 'was about to take his life or to do him some great personal injury' did not deprive the appellant of the right to act on appearances (State v. Gore, 292 Mo. 173, 237 S.W. 993), and of course if the jury found his claim of self-defense he was entitled, as the instruction permitted, to an acquittal. 41 C.J.S. Homicide Sec. 395c(5), p. 229. Instruction 8, preceding the instruction on second degree murder and manslaughter, defined 'Malice', 'Premeditatedly', 'Willfully', and 'Feloniously'. The assignment that the instruction is 'confusing, conflicting, contradictory, misleading and inconsistent,' if a proper assignment at all, is not helpful. Insofar as the terms, particularly 'malice' (26 Am.Jur., Homicide, Sec. 536, p....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Selle
...a ward of the Juvenile Court of Clay County, as his counsel have stated repeatedly. In this connection, see the caveat in State v. Richardson, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 552, 555. When the trial was resumed before the jury, the court's ruling was: 'The motion for a mistrial is overruled. * * * Ladies ......
-
Com. v. Ferrara
...P.2d 798 (1942). People v. Gomez, 152 Cal.App.2d 139, 313 P.2d 58 (1957). State v. Kelly, 169 La. 753, 126 So. 49 (1930). State v. Richardson, 364 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.1963). State v. Reynolds, 41 N.J. 163, 195 A.2d 449 (1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 1000, 84 S.Ct. 1930, 12 L.Ed.2d 1050 (1964). Murp......
-
State v. Williams
...supra. State v. Kukovich, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 324; State v. Curry, Mo., 372 S.W.2d 1; State v. Ross, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 224; State v. Richardson, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 552; State v. McNew, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 571; State v. Brookshire, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 681; State v. Payne, Mo., 342 S.W.2d 950. We note that in......
-
State v. Grubbs, 68230
...reveals no violation of the statute. This case does not compare to the cross-examination of the character witness in State v. Richardson, 364 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.1963). In Richardson, the defendant alleged that the prosecutor violated the statute by asking the character witness whether he knew t......