State v. Singleton, 48677
| Decision Date | 11 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48677,48677 |
| Citation | 694 S.W.2d 828 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Joseph SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Retta-Rae Randall, Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting appellant of murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. §§ 565.004, 571.015, RSMo.1978. Appellant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 24 years for the second degree murder and 3 years for the armed criminal action. The judgment is affirmed.
Appellant contends the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal because the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for murder in the second degree and (2) overruling his objection to questions asked by the state regarding the witness's knowledge of a prior arrest of appellant.
Appellant first contests the submissibility of the state's case. "When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, the reviewing court is obliged to accept as true all direct or circumstantial evidence favorable to the verdict and all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence, while ignoring all evidence to the contrary." State v. Malady, 669 S.W.2d 52, 53 (Mo.App.1984).
The evidence most favorable to the state shows that appellant followed the victim out of a bar and demanded to know why the victim was showing disrespect for appellant's girlfriend. After denying appellant's accusation of disrespect, the victim walked away. Appellant then grabbed the victim, spun him around and stabbed him twice in the area of the chest or stomach with a knife. The victim broke away, but tripped after running about ten or eleven feet. Appellant grabbed the victim again and stabbed him twice more. The victim died of a stab wound to his heart.
"The elements of conventional second degree murder are 'the (1) willful, (2) premeditated, (3) killing, (4) of a human being, (5) with malice aforethought.' " State v. Moody, 645 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.1982).
That the killing was willful or intentional is presumed from the assault with a deadly weapon in such a manner as to naturally, probably or reasonably produce death. See State v. Williamson, 657 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Mo.App.1983). "Premeditation need exist but for a moment only." Id. Here, appellant premeditated within the meaning of second degree murder when he spun the victim around after the victim turned to walk away. "Malice may constitutionally be presumed from a killing accomplished by use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body." Id. Stabbing the victim in the heart with a knife may give rise to the presumption of malice.
Appellant maintains the present case falls within the scope of State v. Whited, 360 Mo. 956, 231 S.W.2d 618 (1950). There the court held the presumption of malice was conclusively rebutted by "uncontradicted evidence of a killing in the heat of passion." Id. 231 S.W. at 621. The defendant and the deceased had become engaged in a barroom brawl during which the deceased had violently beaten the defendant and within ten seconds of the beating the defendant drew his pistol and shot and killed the deceased. Id. Here, the defendant's evidence that the killing was in the heat of passion is not uncontradicted. The evidence favorable to the state shows neither threatening gestures by the victim nor a fight between appellant and the victim. Instead, appellant stabbed the victim after he had turned to leave. Point I is denied.
Appellant's second contention is that the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecutor to ask a defense witness if she had knowledge of appellant's arrest on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon because evidence of the commission of a separate and distinct crime is inadmissible. No such objection was made in the trial court.
The incident...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chance
...for a new trial may not enlarge an objection made at trial, which defendant has obviously undertaken to do here. State v. Singleton, 694 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d748, 750 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33, 37 (Mo.App.1983); State v. Comstock, ......
-
State v. Hanson, 51002
...rule that a defendant may not on appeal enlarge the objection to the admission of evidence made to the trial court. State v. Singleton, 694 S.W.2d 828, 830 (Mo.App.1985). Where the trial objection to the admission of evidence is based upon a specific ground, and a different reason for the o......