State v. Townzell
| Decision Date | 13 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44742,44742,2 |
| Citation | 286 S.W.2d 785 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie TOWNZELL, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
D. Beal, Kansas City, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., W. H. Bates, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of first degree robbery and his punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary. From the judgment imposing sentence in accordance with the verdict, defendant has appealed.
The robbery occurred on May 17, 1954, at the New Victory Hotel, 1424 Holmes Street, in Kansas City, Missouri. Louis E. Smith, an insurance agent and the victim of the robbery, accompanied the defendant to the Holmes Street address upon defendant's assurance that he could borrow money there to pay the premiums on policies of insurance the defendant expected to take out in Smith's company. While in the building Smith was robbed of about $40 in cash. Smith testified that the defendant was several feet away knocking on the door of one of the residence apartments when another colored fellow came by, grabbed Smith and announced, 'This is a holdup.' At the same time defendant walked back toward Smith with his hand in his pocket 'just like he had it on a gun or knife or something.' The two then pushed Smith into a lavoratory or bathroom where they robbed him and both fled.
The defendant admits that he went to the hotel and was present when Smith was robbed, but insists that he, too, was a victim of the robber whom he disclaimed knowing. The defendant had no money, but testified that the robber took his billfold and dropped it on the floor of the washroom, whence the defendant retrieved it and ran from the building. Defendant 'had been in trouble before'; he had pleaded guilty to a larceny charge and had complied with the requirements of his sentence and parole. He testified that he fled from the scene of the robbery because he was afraid of getting in more trouble. The defendant was arrested a few days later in Chanute, Kansas. He testified he went to Chanute the night of the robbery in accordance with arrangements he had previously made to take a job there.
There was evidence that the defendant was seen to run from the building with another man after Smith had been robbed. On defendant's behalf there was also testimony presented calculated to show good character and that defendant had intended to take out some insurance and was accustomed to making small loans from a woman who lived in the hotel. The foregoing resume of the evidence is sufficient for an understanding of the questions involved on this appeal.
One of defendant's contentions is that the court erred in limiting his counsel to onehalf hour for argument instead of allowing him a full hour's time. In support of this contention the appellant cites Harriman v. Harriman, Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 566, and State v. Baker, 136 Mo. 74, 37 S.W. 810. In the Harriman case the St. Louis Court of Appeals increased the allowance made by the trial court for alimony, child support and attorney's fees, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in making the allowance as it did. This case defines judicial discretion and its abuse. The Baker case was a case of statutory rape in which the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the time of argument to one hour, since the issues were exceedingly simple and there was no showing that there was not ample time to thoroughly present the matter to the jury. There is nothing in either of these cases that would lead us to conclude that it would be error to limit defendant's time for argument to one-half hour.
Fixing the time for argument by counsel is a factual determination peculiarly within the trial court's discretion and the record discloses no abuse of such discretion. State v. Lasson, 292 Mo. 155, 238 S.W. 101, 105; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, Sec. 1084, p. 524. The fact issues take a narrow range and are not complicated. Nor were the instructions complicated or extensive. There is no showing that defendant's counsel could not adequately discuss both the law and the evidence in the time allotted him. Further, the question is not properly preserved for review. No request for additional time is shown...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...in limiting closing argument of counsel to twenty minutes. In this regard, broad discretion is given to a trial court, State v. Townzell, 286 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.1956), and the record presented does not reflect an abuse thereof. The sole issue was whether or not there was "consent" to the admitt......
-
State v. Mucie
...by timely motion for new trial in that the amended motion was a nullity. See State v. Ash, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 808, 812(9); State v. Townzell, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 785, 787(4); State v. Miller, Mo., 368 S.W.2d 353, 360(12, 13); and, with respect in particular to presenting alleged new evidence, see ......
-
State v. Peterson
...has briefed several matters which were not set forth in either his motion for a new trial or in his socalled amended motion (State v. Townzell, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 785), and many of his assignments in both his motion and brief are so lacking in detail and particularity as to not be reviewable. ......
-
State v. Whitaker
...compensation. The trial was presided over by an able judge, and the record shows that defendant was fairly tried. Cf. State v. Townzell, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 785. The considerations that this attorney and the defendant may have weighed in deciding not to put the defendant on the stand are no......