State v. Williams, 52903
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 736 |
| Decision Date | 12 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 52903,No. 1,52903,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Luther WILLIAMS, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Ben Ely, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
J. Whitfield Moody, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.
Luther Williams appeals from a judgment entered March 9, 1967, imposing a sentence of ten years on his conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. Sections 560.120 and 560.135, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. We affirm.
Jackson Audrain Johns testified that on the night of May 27, 1966, shortly after nine o'clock, he was walking north on Harrison street, north of Linwood street, in Kansas City, Missouri, when he saw two colored men step out from behind a retaining wall of a parking lot and walk south toward him; that they walked up to him and stopped, one on each side of him; that one, the defendant, had a gun in his hand; that defendant's companion struck him (Johns) in the eye, knocking him down; that while he was lying on the sidewalk, this man struck him again in the face and defendant immediately struck him in the back of the head with the gun; that defendant took his (Johns') billfold from his left back pocket after which the assailants ran east toward Troost street; that his billfold contained his driver's license and $303 in currency. He identified defendant and his companion later that night in a 'line up' at police headquarters; he also identified defendant and the gun used in the robbery at the trial. He further testified that when the two men left he got up and walked south to Linwood where he found a policeman and reported the assault and robbery, describing his assailants; that he was taken to a hospital later that night for treatment of severe injuries to his eye.
Patrolman Robert Thornburg of the Kansas City, Missouri, police department testified that Mr. Johns found him on Linwood between Harrison and Troost and reported that two colored males had attacked and robbed him a few minutes before; that Mr. Johns '* * * was in a somewhat disheveled condition * * *' with '* * * blood on his shirt * * *;' that before meeting Mr. Johns he had observed two colored males walking southwest across Linwood near Troost; that after the report from Mr. Johns, he immediately reported the robbery by radio and requested that any police cars in the vicinity look for and stop the two suspects he had seen earlier crossing Linwood; that he left Mr. Johns and walked east to Forest street and south on Forest a short distance where he found defendant and his companion in the custody of police officers, being searched; that as he walked up to this scene he '* * * discovered some money lying on the ground in the leaves * * *,' Mr. Johns' billfold containing his driver's license, and a revolver, all on the ground three to five feet from defendant. The place of apprehension of defendant and his companion was about two or three blocks from the scene of the robbery.
Mr. Johns further testified that the area of the robbery was lighted by light from a parking lot approximately thirty feet distant; that he identified his two assailants from their clothing and by the size and shape of their faces; that at police headquarters, before the 'line up,' the police told him
Defendant's first point relied on is: 'In his motion for a new trial defendant assigned as error that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence and was based on bias and prejudice.' The words we have italicized are the exact words of the first ground alleged in his motion for new trial. This assignment of error is not sufficient to preserve anything for appellate review. Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R.; State v. Kukovich, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 324, 326(6--7) and cases there cited.
In the argument portion of his brief on this point defendant says that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the conviction, that the state failed to make a submissible case of first degree robbery. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction without Mr. Johns' indentification of him at the trial; that Mr. Johns' in-court identification of him should have been excluded, because it was 'tainted' by Mr. Johns' identification of him in the lineup at police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Amerson, 58118
...against the weight of the evidence. This assignment of error is not sufficient to preserve anything for appellate review. State v. Williams, 423 S.W.2d 736 (Mo.1968); State v. Caldwell, 434 S.W.2d 571 (Mo.1968). Apropos is the following: 'The weight of the evidence may be considered by the ......
-
State v. Burnett
...June 12, 1967. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199; State v. Blevins, Mo.Sup., 421 S.W.2d 263; State v. Williams, Mo.Sup., 423 S.W.2d 736; and State v. Keeney, Mo.Sup., 425 S.W.2d Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of certain other tran......
-
State v. Jones
...v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Mo. banc 1997) (same); State v. Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662, 670 (Mo. banc 1995) (same); State v. Williams, 423 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Mo.1968) (same). 6. Ms. Jones contends the medical examiner's conclusion that S.J.'s death was a homicide cannot be used to establish ......
-
Williams v. Missouri Department of Corrections
...degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. Thereafter, he appealed his conviction to the state supreme court and in State v. Williams, 423 S.W.2d 736 (Mo.1968) the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the conviction and The only issue the appellant presented for adjudication by the Uni......