State v. Street, 57634
Decision Date | 10 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 57634,No. 2,57634,2 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Claude STREET, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Eugene E. Andereck, Trenton, for appellant.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Claude Street appeals from a judgment of conviction of obtaining money by fraudulent check in violation of § 561.450, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and a 3-year sentence. The notice of appeal having been filed prior to January 1, 1972 this Court has jurisdiction.
The single point on appeal is that the court erred in submitting Instruction No. 7 after giving Instruction No. 5, because the instructions, when read together, created confusion in the minds of the jurors to appellant's prejudice.
The main verdict-directing instruction contained a 'tail' which directed an acquittal if the jury found appellant not guilty under Instruction No. 4, which directed the jury, upon a finding that the accused committed the conduct charged, to find defendant not guilty if the jury found first a mental disease or defect, and second that as a result of it appellant did not know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct or that if he did he was incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of law.
Instruction No. 5 read:
'The phrase, 'mental disease or defect,' as used in these instructions, does not include alcoholism without psychosis. With that exception, the phrase means any mental abnormality, regardless of its medical label, origin or source.
Instruction No. 7 read:
Appellant argues that No. 7 did not include the 'without psychosis' exception referred to in No. 5; that applying the ordinary meaning to be attributed to the terms 'intoxication' and 'alcoholism' by lay jurors, who are not experts, the jury could well believe that the two terms are the same thing, since...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mobley, 6-337571
... ... 310 (1989); except on the issue of foreign law. C. Tait & J. LaPlante, [Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed.1988) §§ 7.12.3, 7.17.2]." Orange Street Armory Associates, Inc. v. New Haven, 17 Conn.App. 166, 173, 551 A.2d 759 (1988). Where there is no prejudice there is no denial of due process ... ...
-
State ex rel. Harper v. Zegeer
...alcoholic); State v. Fearon, 283 Minn. 90, 166 N.W.2d 720 (1969) (widespread acceptance that alcoholism is a disease); State v. Street, 498 S.W.2d 523 (Mo.1973) ("alcoholism is a chronic disease"); Dayton v. Sutherland, 42 Ohio Misc. 35, 328 N.E.2d 416 (1974) (alcoholism as a disease); Whee......
-
State v. Shipman
... ... Cf. State v. Street,498 S.W.2d 523, 524(2, 3) (Mo.1973). But although the condition suffered be chronic, it does not rise to a recognizable defense under the law unless ... ...
-
Kitchen v. Time Ins. Co.
...2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254, 1261--1262 (1968); City of Dayton v. Sutherland, 42 Ohio Misc. 35, 328 N.E.2d 416, 418 (1974); State v. Street, 498 S.W.2d 523, 524 (Mo.1973); Pierce v. Tharp, 58 Tenn.App. 362, 430 S.W.2d 787, 792 (Tenn.App.1967); Driver v. Hinnant, (4th Cir. 1966), 356 F.2d 761, 763......