State v. Weindorf
| Decision Date | 14 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 49112,No. 2,49112,2 |
| Citation | 361 S.W.2d 806 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Floyd Allen WEINDORF, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Claude W. McElwee, St. Louis, for appellant.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Chitwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
The defendant was found guilty by a jury of the offense of robbery in the first degree. At a separate hearing the trial court found that the defendant had been convicted of two prior felonies and assessed his punishment at thirteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. The defendant was sentenced accordingly and he has appealed.
The case is before us on the transcript of the record on appeal and a brief filed by the state. Since the defendant has not filed a brief, our review will be of the assignments of error properly preserved in his motion for a new trial and the essential parts of the record. Supreme Court Rules 27.20 and 28.02, V.A.M.R.; State v. Slicker, Mo., 342 S.W.2d 946, 947.
In general the assignments of error in the defendant's motion for new trial are that Senate Bill 117 enacted in 1959 as Sec. 556.280, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., is unconstitutional because it violates Sec. 23, Art. III, of the Constitution of Missouri 1945, V.A.M.S., that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the police records of the City of St. Louis, and that the court erred in sustaining the objection of the circuit attorney to certain arguments of defendant's counsel. The evidence favorabel to the state is clearly sufficient to support the conviction and since no complaint is made on that score a brief statement of the facts will suffice.
Robert Angel and his wife Lulu conducted a partnership business known as Lou's Confectionery on North 20th Street in St. Louis. At about 11:55 p. m. on March 21, 1961, two men entered the confectionery and robbed them of approximately $590 in money. The robbers threatened the Angels telling them that it was a stickup and they would not get hurt if they did not move. One of the men kept one of his hands in the pocket of his jacket as though he had a gun, and the other took a butcher knife away from Mrs. Angel and held it in his hand while the robbery was in progress.
The police were notified and within thirty minutes after the robbery the defendant Weindorf was arrested about six blocks from the confectionery. At that time and at the trial he was identified by the Angels as one of the robbers. The other robber, William Erdelen, was also arrested and identified but was not tried jointly with this defendant. The defendant was represented throughout the trial and subsequent proceedings in the circuit court by court appointed counsel.
The motion for new trial asserts that Sec. 556.280 violates Sec. 23 of Art. III of the Constitution in that it embodies more than one subject and contains subjects which are not clearly expressed in its title. Insofar as pertinent here, Sec. 23 of Art. III, provides that: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title, * * *.' Section 556.280 provides in substance that any person previously convicted of a felony upon being tried and convicted of a subsequent offense shall receive such punishment as the trial judge determines within the limits provided by law for the subsequent offense. The title of Senate Bill 117 of the 70th General Assembly, which is Sec. 556.280, reads as follows: 'An Act to repeal section 556.280, RSMo 1949, relating to second and subsequent offenses, and to enact in lieu thereof a new section relating to the same subject and to the trial and punishment of persons convicted of crime following one or more convictions, to be known as section 556.280.'
The safeguards sought to be afforded by Sec. 23, Art. III, of the Constitution are expressed in State v. Ludwig, Mo., 322 S.W.2d 841, 846, as follows: 'One of the purposes of the constitutional requirement that a bill shall contain but one subject, clearly expressed in its title, is to prevent surprise or fraud upon members of the legislature and to fairly apprise the public of the subject matter of pending legislation.'
The coverage of the constitutional provision is stated in the early case of State ex rel. Wolfe v. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271, 21 S.W. 1125, 1126, in this fashion:
The burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a legislative enactment rests upon the party questioning it, and a statute will not be held unconstitutional unless it clearly and undoubtedly contravenes some constitutional provision. State v. King, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 930, 932[2, 3].
Section 23, Art. III, of the 1945 Constitution should be liberally construed. In order to satisfy the provision's requirements the title of a statute needs only to indicate the general contents of the act, and if the contents fairly relate to and have a natural connection with the subject expressed in the title they are within the purview of the title. State v. King, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 930, 932.
The defendant's motion charges that Sec. 556.280 RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., contains more than one subject but wholly fails to specify what the foreign or unrelated provisions are. Nevertheless, we have examined the statute for proscribed material. We find that the provisions of the act all have a natural relationship and connection with the subject of the act which is the trial and punishment of persons convicted of crime following one or more convictions. State v. King, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 930. The subject of the act is single and not in violation of the constitutional provision.
Next the defendant contends that the title of Sec. 556.280 is constitutionally deficient in that it does not state or indicate that the trial judge and not the jury should determine whether the defendant has a prior conviction and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Biddle
...are inadmissible as evidence in a criminal trial because they lack scientific support for their reliability. State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 (Mo.1962); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181, 188 S.W.2d 43, 51 (1945). 2 At least 40 other jurisdictions follow the general rule that the results of ......
-
State v. Ghan
...Otherwise, the results of polygraph examinations are excluded because they lack scientific support for their reliability. State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806 (Mo.1962); State v. Cole, 354 Mo. 181, 188 S.W.2d 43 (1945); State v. Jacks, 525 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1975). While it may not be as speci......
-
Wyrick v. Fields
...of polygraph examinations are inadmissible in Missouri. See State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182, 191 (Mo.1980) (en banc); State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 (Mo.1962). When a defendant, after consultation with his attorney, agrees to submit to an examination the results of which are inadmis......
-
Fields v. Wyrick
...the parties have stipulated to the use of such evidence. See State v. Biddle, 599 S.W.2d 182, 191 (Mo.1980) (en banc ); State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806, 811 (Mo.1962). The Missouri Supreme Court recently stated (g)iven the large margin of error stated by some experts and the disagreements......
-
Tipping point: Missouri single subject provision.
...v. Godfrey, 519 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. 1975) (en banc); Mo. State Park Bd. v. McDaniel, 513 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. 1974) (per curiam); State v. Weindorf, 361 S.W.2d 806 (Mo. 1962); Sch. Dist. of Mexico, Mo., No. 59 v. Maple Grove Sch. Dist., No. 56, 359 S.W.2d 743 (Mo. 1962) (per curiam); State ex rel. Reo......