State v. Roberts, 41852.
Decision Date | 19 August 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 41852.,41852. |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael A. Gross, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George R. Westfall, Pros. Atty., Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was found guilty of the crime of rape and sentenced to a term of twenty years in the Missouri Division of Corrections.
The evidence would support a finding that defendant, who was wearing a ski mask, broke into the home of a young widow during the night time hours and forcibly raped her after threatening to kill her with a knife. Defendant was identified by the victim by reason of a speech impediment. Defendant also gave a confession to the police and to the victim.
For reversal defendant contends that the court erred in (1) denying defendant's request to strike three jurors for cause, (2) limiting the final argument of defense counsel and improperly commenting on the evidence at the time, and (3) refusing to grant a new trial on account of persistent prosecutorial misconduct.
Defendant complains that the court should have struck veniremen Hebenstreit, Meyer and Terranova for cause.
Pertinent portions of the voir dire involving Mr. Hebenstreit follow:
The following pertains to Mr. Terranova:
The defendant exercised peremptory challenges to strike veniremen Hebenstreit, Meyer and Terranova.
In a jury trial, a party is entitled to a full panel of qualified impartial veniremen before he is required to exercise his peremptory challenges. State v. Land, 478 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo.1972). In the first instance the trial court must determine whether the venireman who is challenged for cause is qualified. In making this determination the court is accorded broad discretion which may not be lightly disturbed on appeal. We do not however give blind deference to the trial court's exercise of discretion. When the issue is raised on appeal we must review the record to determine whether the trial court has abused its discretion. State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16, 18 (Mo.App.1976).
In the case before us Mr. Hebenstreit when asked if he cold sit impartially, answered "no." He further stated that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Murphy, 41873
...is entitled to a full panel of qualified impartial veniremen before he is required to exercise his peremptory challenges. State v. Roberts, 604 S.W.2d 765, 767(1-3) (Mo.App.1980). The trial court determines, in the first instance, whether a prospective juror is qualified; and, in making thi......
-
State v. Jackson
...before he was required to exercise his peremptory challenges. State v. Murphy, 610 S.W.2d 382, 389 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Roberts, 604 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Mo.App.1980). Furthermore, the appellant requested only the radical remedy of quashal of the jury panel and a mistrial. He did not ask the......
-
Wiedower v. ACF Industries, Inc.
...she is not able to give a defendant a fair trial does not meet generally accepted standards to qualify as a juror. State v. Roberts, 604 S.W.2d 765, 767 (Mo.App.1980). After the verdict, plaintiff's counsel requested that the court question the juror in chambers in order to make a record on......
-
State v. Taylor, 44723
...which the panel's lack of response to the trial court's general question was "clear and unequivocal." Defendant relies on State v. Roberts, 604 S.W.2d 765 (Mo.App.1980), for the proposition that a general question to the entire venire as to whether they would follow the court's instructions......