State v. Shields, 50238
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CRIST; DOWD, C.J., and REINHARD |
| Citation | State v. Shields, 709 S.W.2d 556 (Mo. App. 1986) |
| Decision Date | 20 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 50238,50238 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Paul SHIELDS, Appellant. |
Mary E. Dockery, Clayton, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Kevin B. Behrndt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of felonious restraint, burglary in the first degree, and assault in the second degree for which he was sentenced by the court as a prior and persistent offender, to concurrent terms of twelve years' imprisonment on each conviction. We affirm.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The charge of felonious restraint arose when defendant broke into the home of victim (defendant's ex-wife) on July 23, 1984 and forced her to get dressed, get their two children, and come with him. They drove around for approximately five hours, going as far as Warrenton, Missouri, before victim was released.
On August 20, 1984, defendant broke down the basement door, carrying a stick with which he hit victim several times. He also hit victim's mother across her back. Defendant dragged victim out of the house, and pushed her over the fence. A neighbor intervened, and helped victim back across the fence. This neighbor chased defendant, who ran to his truck, and then allegedly fired a gunshot at the neighbor. This incident resulted in charges of first degree burglary, assault in the second degree against victim's mother, and assault in the first degree against the neighbor.
Defendant was tried on six charges. He was convicted of the felonious restraint of victim committed on July 23, 1984, and of burglary in the first degree and assault in the second degree of victim, committed on August 20, 1984. He was acquitted, however, of the charges of assault of victim's mother and the neighbor, and of a burglary of victim's home alleged to have occurred August 16, 1984.
Defendant raises two points on appeal. In his first point, he claims the court erred in his overruling challenge for cause to Venirewoman Beier, who had an experience seventeen years before the trial when her husband's ex-wife forced her way into their home and attacked her. The venirewoman had not seen the ex-wife for approximately ten years. She consistently maintained she could give both sides in the case a fair trial under the evidence presented in court and the instructions given by the court, and would follow the court's instructions. Under defense counsel's questioning, she stated she could separate her experiences from the case at bar, that "[i]t has nothing to do with what's going on here today." Defendant's motion to strike was overruled.
While defendant is entitled to a full panel of qualified jurors from which to make his preemptory strikes, State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Mo. banc 1985), decisions...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Adams, WD
...of other crimes. His argument is not well taken. Evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove intent. State v. Shields, 709 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Mo.App.1986). The testimony of prior threats made to the victim were not remote in time from the attack, and were relevant to show co......
-
State v. Wright
...evidence was related to the crime charged, and the trial court did not err in admitting it. The point has no merit. State v. Shields, 709 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Mo.App.1986). The judgment and sentence are CARL R. GAERTNER, P.J., and SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all......
-
State v. Allison, 52876
...sustained by the victim in the prior assault was probative of the fact that defendant intended to harm her. See State v. Shields, 709 S.W.2d 556, 558 (Mo.App., E.D.1986). The series of assaults against the victim were related, revealing defendant's ongoing intent to harm the victim. Point D......
- State v. Rummerfield, WD