State v. Roberds, WD
| Citation | 820 S.W.2d 621 |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles J. ROBERDS, Appellant. 44295. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
F.A. White, Jr., McFadin, White and McFadin, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.
Charles Roberds was found guilty by a jury of involuntary manslaughter and assault in the second degree. Pursuant to the recommendations of the jury the court imposed punishment on the manslaughter charge of one year in the county jail and a fine of $5,000.00 and imposed a fine of $5,000.00 on the assault charge. 1
Roberds contends that § 565.024.1(2), RSMo 1986, under which he was convicted of manslaughter, is unconstitutional because of vagueness. Appeal dismissed.
In October, 1989, Roberds was charged with the Class C felony of involuntary manslaughter by operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and doing so with criminal negligence thereby causing the death of Angela Koch. Trial to a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty and recommended punishment at imprisonment in the county jail for one year and a fine to be determined by the court. The court sentenced Roberds to one year in the county jail and a fine of $5,000.00.
The sole point raised on this appeal is that § 565.024.1(2) is unconstitutional. That section reads "a person commits the crime of involuntary manslaughter if he (2) while in an intoxicated manner operates a motor vehicle in this state and, when so operating, acts with criminal negligence to cause the death of any person." Roberds contends that § 565.024.1(2) and § 562.016.5, RSMo 1986, which defines the term "acts with criminal negligence," are unconstitutional because the definition of criminal negligence is so vague that it fails to warn the public with reasonable certainty as to what conduct constitutes criminal negligence.
If the constitutional challenge has been preserved for review, this court does not have jurisdiction and the appeal would have to be transferred to the Supreme Court, Art. V, § 3, Constitution of Missouri. While Roberds raised the constitutional issue prior to trial, the record does not reveal that Roberds filed a motion for new trial. Rule 29.11 requires allegations of error in jury tried cases to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bowens
...transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court is not required and there is also no issue for review before this Court. See State v. Roberds, 820 S.W.2d at 621, 622 (Mo.App.1991). Defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's ca......
-
State v. Sullivan, s. 19834
...for review, this Court does not have jurisdiction and the appeal must be transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court. State v. Roberds, 820 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Perkins, 680 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Mo.App.1984). "[O]ur Supreme Court has exclusive original appellate jurisdiction in......
-
State v. Giles, s. 66839
...the trial court either, at the time it overruled the motions to strike for cause, or in Giles' motion for new trial. State v. Roberds, 820 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App. W.D.1991). Giles' second and final point is that the court erred in submitting to the jury an instruction on assault second deg......
-
State v. Edmond
...section 573.037, and that issue was not preserved for review, there are no reviewable issues before this court. See State v. Roberds, 820 S.W.2d 621, 622 (Mo.App. W.D.1991). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.All concur. 1. A prior version of section 573.037.1 provided that “[a] person comm......