State v. Sincup, 47971
Decision Date | 31 July 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 47971,47971 |
Citation | 674 S.W.2d 689 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael SINCUP, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Donald J. Hager, Public Defender, Farmington, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Theodore A. Bruce, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Michael Sincup, appellant herein, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Madison County of burglary in the second degree. § 569.170 RSMo 1978. The trial court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Appellant raises several points on appeal. First, he contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during closing arguments, pertaining to the term "reasonable doubt." Second, he contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal, in that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he "entered" the building within the meaning of § 569.170 RSMo 1978. Finally, he contends that the trial court erred in proceeding to trial because the amended information on which appellant was tried was not properly signed by either the prosecuting attorney or assistant prosecuting attorney. We affirm.
The facts are essentially undisputed. Following a silent alarm at the Energy Gas Station in Farmington, appellant was stopped and searched by police officers. Later it was discovered that the serial number on the dollar bill found in appellant's pocket corresponded to the recorded serial number of a dollar bill which was taken from the station's cash register. The point of entry, a twelve-inch by twenty four-inch window, was marked by what appeared to be a screwdriver. There was testimony at trial that a screwdriver found with appellant fit the marks on the broken window. Appellant was charged by information, which was later amended, and was subsequently convicted of burglary in the second degree.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to the prosecuting attorney's discussion of the term "reasonable doubt" during closing argument. As grounds for this assertion, he relies on State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d 778 (Mo. banc 1983). Williams, however, is easily distinguished from the case at bar. In Williams, as in the present case, the prosecuting attorney described the term in the negative by stating, Yet these statements did not constitute the basis for the Missouri Supreme Court's reversal of Williams' conviction. The prosecutor further stated that reasonable doubt is "beyond reason and common sense." State v. Williams, 659 S.W.2d at 781. It was this statement, and not the other two, that caused the court to find counsel's definition of the term incorrect, and thus fatally impermissible.
In the present case, the prosecuting attorney did not incorrectly define the term "reasonable doubt." Rather, he stated that he was, "[n]ot held to the higher standard of beyond a shadow of a doubt," and that he did "[n]ot have to prove this case beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond any doubt or to an absolute certainty." In the past this court has held that such statements, while improper, do not constitute prejudicial error because they are not legally incorrect. State v. Ball, 622 S.W.2d 285, 288 (Mo.App.1981). Appellant's first point on appeal is without merit.
Appellant also claims that, because the window through...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sammons
...the instructions given by the court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this line of questioning. State v. Sineup, 674 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Mo.App.1984). Point Defendant's second contention is that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it overruled Defendant......
-
State v. Sammons
...instructions given by the court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this line of questioning. State v. Sincup, 674 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Mo. App. 1984). Point Defendant's second contention is that the trial court erred and abused its discretion when it overruled Defendant's......
-
State v. Knight, 54172
...motion to quash. Walster v. State, 438 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1969); State v. Souders, 703 S.W.2d 909 (Mo.App., E.D.1985); State v. Sincup, 674 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Mo.App., E.D.1984); State v. VanSickel, 675 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.App., W.D.1984); State v. Rhodes, 591 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.App., E.D.1979). In Walst......
-
State v. Hendricks, 45825
...though such comments are improper, they do not constitute prejudicial error because they are not legally incorrect. State v. Sincup, 674 S.W.2d 689 (Mo.App.E.D.1984); State v. Ball, 622 S.W.2d 285, 288 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Henderson, 547 S.W.2d 141, 143-44 (Mo.App.1976). See State v. Car......