State v. Ulrich
Decision Date | 13 October 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 46584,No. 1,46584,1 |
Citation | 316 S.W.2d 537 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Victor Joseph ULRICH, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles M. Shaw, Wayne C. Smith, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Harold L. Henry, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted under Section 564.450 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. of feloniously leaving the scene of an accident; being charged with running his car into the car of Arnold H. Fink. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the county jail for one year and has appealed. Since the offense is made a felony by Sec. 564.460, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., we have jurisdiction. Sec. 3, Art. V, Const., V.A.M.S.
Defendant has filed no brief, so we consider the assignments properly made in his motion for new trial. State v. Stehlin, Mo.Sup., 312 S.W.2d 838, and cases cited. The following assignments were made in the motion:
Certainly the first two assignments do not amount to an assignment that there was not sufficient evidence to support the verdict so as to entitled defendant to a judgment of acquittal. It has long been established both that a criminal charge may be proved by circumstantial evidence (State v. Pigg, 312 Mo. 212, 278 S.W. 1030; State v. Loges, 339 Mo. 862, 98 S.W.2d 564); and that credibility and conflicts in testimony are matters for the jury. (State v. Thomas, Mo.Sup., 309 S.W.2d 607, and cases cited.) Thus these assignments are too general and preserve nothing for review. Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S.; State v. Stehlin, supra. We note, however, that there was substantial evidence both direct and circumstantial that defendant's car did strike the Fink car. There was the testimony of witness Charles W. Crause, who was driving behind the two cars involved (Fink's Chevrolet and defendant's Kaiser), that the Kaiser car was traveling very close to the Chevrolet at 40 miles per hour, then passed and cut in front of the Chevrolet, 'after which the Chevrolet went into a ditch and overturned.' He followed the Kaiser and his brother riding with him got defendant's license number and he gave it to the police. Mr. Fink said he saw the Kaiser car in his rear mirror He also said: 'I didn't see the cars come together but I sure felt a jar.' Fink's wife and daughter, who were riding with him, also testified and Mrs. Fink said: Their daughter also said: Captain Murphy of the Creve Coeur Police, in which city the casualty occurred, said he passed the two cars (he was going in the opposite direction) and saw defendant driving the Kaiser car behind Fink's car 'approximately one foot from the bumper.' About three or four minutes later he received a radio call that an accident had happened and went to the scene. He saw the Kaiser car later that evening...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. James
...and not make voluntary statements, but denied defendant's request for a mistrial. Defendant received all proper relief. State v. Ulrich, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 537, 539. Defendant assigns error in the court's refusal to permit him to read in his case his motion to take depositions of the state's w......
-
State v. Nolan
...opposed theories and facts and conflicts exist in the evidence, the matter is one for the jury to determine. State v. Ulrich, 316 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Mo.1958); State v. Rose, 325 S.W.2d 485, 487 (Mo.1959). In reviewing a jury verdict in a criminal trial we neither undertake to determine the cr......
-
State v. Humphrey
...S.W.2d 249; Holt v. State, Mo.. 433 S.W.2d 265; State v. James, Mo., 347 S.W.2d 211; State v. Statler, Mo., 331 S.W.2d 526; State v. Ulrich, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 537 and State v. Tellis, Mo., 310 S.W.2d Laverne Jackson was not endorsed as a witness on the information when it was filed on Decembe......
-
State v. Williams, 46976
...to the jury. No brief has been filed by defendant, so we consider the assignments properly made in his motion for new trial. State v. Ulrich, Mo.Sup., 316 S.W.2d 537; State v. Stehlin, Mo.Sup., 312 S.W.2d 838. The only defense was insanity. Defendant did not testify but was present in the c......