State v. Townsend
| Citation | 289 S.W. 570 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | 27059 |
| Parties | STATE v. TOWNSEND |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Cunningham & McClellan, of Eminence, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and W. F. Frank, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged by information in the circuit court of Shannon county with a felonious assault. Upon a trial he was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $ 100. From this judgment he appeals.
The defendant and Bernie Smith had, during the early hours, and until 7 o'clock a. m., of the day of the assault, been engaged in a crap game at the residence of the defendant. Smith proposed to discontinue the game after having won several dollars from the defendant. The latter objected to his leaving. An altercation arose in which the defendant Smith, and a brother of the latter participated. Upon the defendant assaulting Bernie Smith, he and his brother fled from the scene. The defendant procured a shotgun, ran after them, and fired three shots at them as they ran. There was testimony pro and con as to whether he fired at the Smiths or in the air. The defendant contended that he did the latter his purpose being to frighten the Smiths, and not to injure them. Witnesses testified as to his good character. The jury, within their province, saw fit to believe the witnesses for the state.
No brief has been filed on behalf of the defendant.
The errors urged in the motion for a new trial are the improper admission and exclusion of evidence, improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney, and that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice.
I. In many instances the objections to testimony in regard to gambling and the possession of liquor by the defendant were not made and exceptions saved thereto. In others the objections interposed to this character of evidence were not made until the questions asked had been answered. Under these circumstances the contentions urged by the defendant in this regard are not for our consideration. State v. Walker (Mo. Sup.) 248 S.W. 947; State v. Gore, 292 Mo. 173, 237 S.W. 993. In other instances, as suggested by the state, the objections made were too general to present the points for review. Heinbach v. Heinbach, 274 Mo. 301, 202 S.W. 1123; State v. Lassieur (Mo. Sup.) 242 S.W. loc. cit. 902.
In addition, the evidence objected to was a part and parcel of the facts leading up to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial