State v. Schramm, 44405
| Decision Date | 14 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 44405,44405,1 |
| Citation | 275 S.W.2d 343 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles SCHRAMM, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
William B. Kelleher, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Grover C. Huston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
COIL, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and larceny, and the jury found that he had been convicted of a prior felony. He was sentenced to 15 years in the penitentiary.
Appellant has filed no brief on his appeal, so that we examine the assignments of error in his motion for a new trial. Those are:
'1. That the verdict and judgment in this case are against the weight of the evidence.
'2. That the verdict and judgment in this case are against the greater weight of the evidence.
'3. That the verdict and judgment in this case are against the concrete and substantial evidence.
'4. That the verdict in this case is the result of bias and prejudice on the part of the jury.
It is apparent that the above assignments are insufficient to preserve anything for our review. A motion for new trial 'must set forth in detail and with particularity * * * the specific grounds or causes therefor', Supreme Court Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S. and this requirement is mandatory. State v. Gaddy, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 65, 67[2-4].
It has been repeatedly held that the five assignments in the above motion for new trial are too general and therefore insufficient to preserve anything for appellate review. State v. Rohman, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 69, 72; State v. Burks, Mo.Sup., 257 S.W.2d 919, 920.
We have, however, examined the evidence adduced by the state and find it substantial and sufficient to support the charges contained in the amended information and sufficient to support the finding of a conviction of a prior felony.
Police officers, summoned to the vicinity of a store building at about 3:40 a. m. found appellant in a back yard crouching behind a metal trash can. He was holding seven guns which he dropped when so ordered. In appellant's automobile parked near the yard were found 26 other guns. The back door of a sporting goods store was adjacent to the yard. That store had been forcibly entered, and the guns in appellant's possession (both in his arms and in his automobile) came from the store, were of a value of several hundreds of dollars, and were the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilliam, 48437
...setting forth any specific ground for the asserted error. Sup.Ct.R. 27.20; State v. Sheard, Mo., 276 S.W.2d 191[1, 2]; State v. Schramm, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 343. The requests appear to be based on Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103, which involved rules of proc......
-
State v. Turner
...State v. Swindell, Mo., 271 S.W.2d 533 (instructions); State v. Reese, 364 Mo. 1221, 274 S.W.2d 304 (instructions); State v. Schramm, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 343 (admission of evidence, verdict against weight of evidence, bias and prejudice); State v. Gaddy, Mo., 261 S.W.2d 65 (verdict against law ......
-
State v. Whitaker
...and preserves nothing for review. See State v. Burks, Mo.Sup., 257 S.W.2d 919, 920; State v. Jonas, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 3; State v. Schramm, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 343, and cases cited therein. The latter four assignments mentioned are equally general and vague. It would unduly prolong this op......
-
State v. Stehlin
...if he had been arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. See Rule 25.04; State v. Newstead, Mo.Sup., 280 S.W.2d 6, 8; State v. Schramm, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 343, 344. We find defendant had a fair trial without reversible The judgment is affirmed. All concur. ...