State v. Willard
| Citation | 142 S.W.2d 1046,346 Mo. 773 |
| Decision Date | 10 September 1940 |
| Docket Number | 36915 |
| Parties | The State v. Ralph Willard, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Reported at 346 Mo. 773 at 785.
Original Opinion of September 10, 1940, Reported at 346 Mo. 773.
On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant asks us to recede from our ruling that the trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling his motion to quash the panel because one of the special prosecutors had interrogated a witness as to the appellant's general reputation as a law abiding citizen. The question was asked after the appellant had testified, but the defense had not put his reputation in issue. Before the question was answered an objection to it was promptly sustained and the special prosecutor severely rebuked. (See opinion above.) Appellant cites; Sec. 22 of Rule 35 of this court; 16 C. J., sec. 2229, p. 892; State v Pierson, 331 Mo. 636, 648, 56 S.W.2d 120, 124; State v. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 485, 144 S.W. 445, 448; State v. Rose, 178 Mo. 25, 35-6, 76 S.W. 103, 106.
Rule 35 of this court announces a code of ethics for lawyers; and Sec. 22 thereof declares a lawyer "should not offer evidence, which he knows the court should reject, in order to get the same before a jury by argument for its admissibility." In this case the State made no argument in the presence of the jury for the admission of the testimony after the question was asked, and really none before, except to say the inquiry would be directed to the appellant's reputation (not stating for what). We think the special prosecutor was subject to censure, but cannot hold the question was of such nature as to poison the minds of the jury beyond the cure of the vigorous rebuke administered by the court. In the cases cited by appellant the transgressions were far more flagrant than here.
In the Pierson case the assistant circuit attorney asked the appellant: "Are you willing to go into this entire transaction, or are there some matters you would rather not discuss?" Thus appellant's statutory right to exemption from cross-examination on matters not covered by the examination in chief was utterly ravished, as the opinion points out. In the Teeter case, a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, a female witness introduced for the ostensible purpose of proving defendant's reputation was asked if he had not also seduced her under promise of marriage -- an independent crime. Also,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willard
...346 Mo. 773 The State v. Ralph Willard, Appellant No. 36915Supreme Court of MissouriSeptember 10, 1940 Rehearing Granted, Reported at 346 Mo. 773 at 785. from Stoddard Circuit Court; Hon. James V. Billings, Judge. Opinion filed at May Term, 1940, July 3, 1940; motion for rehearing filed; mo......
-
State v. Butler
...McDOWELL, J., concurs in result. 1 State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 S.W. 622, 628.2 See Annotation, 4 A.L.R.2d 1077; State v. Willard, 346 Mo. 773, 142 S.W.2d 1046; Lukitsch v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 362 Mo. 1071, 246 S.W.2d 749, 756; State v. Abbott, Mo., 245 S.W.2d 876; Farmers' Sta......
-
State v. Willhite
... ... did direct counsel for the State to keep within the evidence ... of record. Trial courts may exercise a sound discretion in ... ruling on arguments made by counsel. State v. Bundy, ... Mo.Sup., 44 S.W.2d 121, 124[6]; State v ... Willard, 346 Mo. 773, 779, 142 S.W.2d 1046, 1050 [3] ... Appellant's ... motion for new trial asserts error in that the court ruled on ... an objection to remarks of the prosecutor 'in a manner ... not in accordance with the law and in words evidencing to the ... jury the court's ... ...