State v. Sadler
| Decision Date | 03 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42153,42153 |
| Citation | 613 S.W.2d 682 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Earl SADLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard M. Jacobs, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
P. Dennis Barks, Asst. Pros. Atty., Hermann, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant was charged and convicted of common assault. The penalty imposed was a fine of $100. From the conviction, defendant has appealed raising five contentions of trial court error.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and for new trial because the State failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This point is apparently based upon the reasoning that the only State's witness to the altercation was the complaining witness, a Mr. Malvern Huebner; whereas the defendant, Earl Sadler, and his wife both testified to a different state of facts which led up to and included the assault. A conviction of a crime may be sustained on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecuting witness alone where the evidence of that witness was not contradictory in nature or unbelievable. A reviewing court does not undertake to determine the credibility of witnesses or weigh evidence in criminal cases. State v. Graham, 527 S.W.2d 936, 947 (14, 16) (Mo.App.1975). It is also true that where it is contended the evidence does not support the judgment of conviction, an appellate court considers as true all the evidence which tends to support the judgment and all inferences favorable to that judgment. State v. Simmons, 494 S.W.2d 302, 303 (1) (Mo.1973). We briefly consider the favorable evidence.
On the day that the assault occurred Malvern Huebner and his family were out doing some work on cleaning up some fallen timber. Huebner noticed Mr. and Mrs. Sadler down the road near their home and walked down to talk to them concerning a problem that an acquaintance had had with regard to traveling across land Huebner believed he owned. The acquaintance was confronted by Sadler who had threatened him with some sort of legal proceeding. Huebner, unarmed, walked toward the Sadlers and when he indicated a desire to talk to Mr. Sadler, he was intercepted by Mrs. Sadler who stepped in front of him. He stated that he did not touch or bump into Mrs. Sadler but that suddenly without provocation he was struck on his head from the side and went partly down on the ground. Sadler then got on top of him and repeatedly hit him around the face and head. Mrs. Sadler in the meantime held one of his arms down while Huebner used the other to try to fend off the blows. Such evidence supports a judgment of conviction. The weighing of evidence is a matter for the trier of fact who hears the witnesses and is in a position to judge their credibility. State v. Bohlen, 545 S.W.2d 673 (3, 4) (Mo.App.1976).
The defendant next contends that the court prevented cross-examination of the State's chief witness concerning that witness's interest in a $150,000 civil suit which the witness allegedly filed against the defendant arising out of the same altercation. During the cross-examination of Huebner, defendant's counsel asked Huebner if he know a man with a beard in the rear of the courtroom. Huebner responded that he did. He was then asked how he knew him and Huebner stated that he was an attorney. The question was then asked as to whether he represented Huebner. An objection to relevancy was sustained. The question was then asked as to whether the attorney was representing Huebner in a $150,000 lawsuit. Another objection was sustained. Huebner was then asked as to whether he had some other reasons for wanting Mr. Sadler convicted. Another objection was sustained. No offer of proof was made to establish the relevance of the cross-examination. No effort had been made to lay a foundation that Huebner had filed a civil action against Sadler. The mere fact that the complaining witness had filed a $150,000 lawsuit had no relevancy to the case being tried unless it was shown that the lawsuit was filed against Sadler thus giving rise to a possible inference of bias other than being the victim of an assault. As was stated in State v. Roesel, 574 S.W.2d 944, 946 (Mo.App.1978): "... defendant's counsel failed at trial to make any effort or offer before the trial court to establish the relevancy or materiality of his questioning or what the witness would state but chose, instead, to remain silent after the objections and rulings had been made." Failure to advance the factual and legal theories as to the relevancy of a matter on cross-examination prevents a later charge of trial court error in sustaining objection to further cross-examination. Bias or prejudice of a witness is a legitimate concern in the trial of a case, but the trial court is vested with broad discretion in regulating...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...the breathalyzer test to defendant. Demonstrations before a jury rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Sadler, 613 S.W.2d 682, 686 (Mo.App.1981). The proffered demonstration, which was refused by the trial court, insofar as relevant to circumstances and conditions ex......
-
State v. Ofield, WD
...appeal. State v. Wright, 476 S.W.2d 581, 584 (Mo.1972). See also State v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Sadler, 613 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Mo.App.1981). Appellant's first point of error as to whether Sergeant Evans' testimony was credible due to certain inconsistencies is n......
-
State v. Seaton
...state must be established. Allowing demonstrations in front of the jury is within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Sadler, 613 S.W.2d 682, 686 (Mo.App.1981). Certainly the tape does not prove itself and some foundation for its use must be made. See Kellensworth v. State, 278 Ark.......
-
State v. Duckworth, 56813
...to the state's proof of actual possession, but any inconsistencies were for the trial court, not us, to determine. State v. Sadler, 613 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Mo.App.1981). In oral argument, defendant argued that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence. Our function is to determine wh......