State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 24 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 27523 |
| Citation | 292 S.W. 19 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Barney E. Reilly and W. B. Norris, both of St. Joseph, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Claude Curtis, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
An information was filed in the circuit court of Buchanan county charging the defendant and Andrew Dumphrey with the crime of robbery in the first degree from the person and in the presence of J. M. Reasoner. A severance was granted, and on a trial to a jury on November 6, 1925, the defendant was found guilty as charged in the information and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 20 years in accordance with the verdict, and defendant appealed. In the motion for a new trial it is alleged:
'(1) The court erred in admitting on the part of the state irrelevant, incompetent, and illegal evidence over the objections of the defendant.
'(2) The court failed to instruct the jury fully on the law of the case.
'(3) The court erred in giving each and every instruction it gave.
'(4) The court erred in refusing the instructions asked by the defendant.
'(5) The court assumed to lecture and instruct defendant's counsel, and interrupt him when he sought to address objections to the court because of questions addressed to witness by the state, and thus belittling defendant and his counsel, and putting them in an unfavorable position before the jury.
'(6) The court's manner and actions in receiving and ruling on the objection made by defendant's counsel tended to bias the jury against defendant.
'(7) The verdict of the jury was the result of passion and prejudice.
'(8) The punishment assessed by the jury is excessive and unreasonable and out of proportion to the crime committed.
'(9) After the jury was discharged, one member thereof said he had known defendant Williams since he was a boy, and his whole family should be in the penitentiary.'
Rev St. 1919, § 4079, as re-enacted by Laws of Missouri 1925, p. 198, provides:
'The motion for a new trial shall be in writing and must set forth in detail and with particularity in separate numbered paragraphs, the specific grounds or causes therefor.'
This act is mandatory and may not be evaded. The motion herein is subdivided into paragraphs, but in no respect do the first six paragraphs comply with the statute. They do not set forth in detail or with particularity the specific grounds or causes for a new trial. This amendment has been considered in the recent opinion of Judge Blair in State v. Standifer (Mo Sup.) 289 S.W. 856, rendered at this session of the court. In accordance with the ruling in that case, we must hold that neither of the first six paragraphs meets the requirements of the statute; they are too general; they fail to indicate what evidence was erroneously admitted or wherein the court failed to instruct the jury, or what error, if any, lurks in the instructions...
To continue reading
Request your trial