State v. Zuck
Citation | 142 S.W.2d 8 |
Decision Date | 03 July 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 36958.,36958. |
Parties | STATE v. ZUCK. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County, Division No. 1; Ray E. Watson, Judge.
S. Zuck was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
A. H. Garner, of Joplin, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Max Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
BOHLING, Commissioner.
S. Zuck appeals from a judgment imposing a sentence of four years' imprisonment for operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.
There was ample testimony on behalf of the State to sustain findings that appellant was operating a motor vehicle on the public highway; that he was in an intoxicated condition and that, after he got out of the car, he was "staggering."
Appellants' brief asserts error in the overruling of his application for a continuance, based on the alleged absence of two witnesses who would give testimony of identical effect. The issue is not for review because the application for a continuance is not embodied in the bill of exceptions and no exception was saved to the court's action thereon. See, among others, State v. Fleetwood, 223 Mo. 69, 77(2), 122 S.W. 696, 698[2]; State v. Baugh, Mo. Sup., 217 S.W. 277, 280[1]; State v. Henson, 290 Mo. 238, 244(2), 234 S.W. 832, 834[2]; State v. Gilreath, Mo.Sup., 267 S. W. 880, 881[1]; State v. McVey, Mo.Sup., 66 S.W.2d 857, 859[3]. The application stated diligence had been exercised but there was no statement of any facts establishing diligence. Consult Sec. 3654, R.S. 1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 3654, p. 3210; State v. Schooley, 322 Mo. 234, 241, 14 S.W.2d 628, 631(1-3). As we read the application and the evidence, one of the witnesses mentioned in the application appeared and testified. The point is ruled against appellant.
Other points in appellant's brief go to the punishment assessed. The complaint is the punishment is excessive. From the amount of the punishment, it is also stated the verdict was the result of bias and prejudice. A maximum punishment of five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary is authorized upon a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. See Secs. 7783(g) and 7786(c), R.S.1929, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 7783(g) and 7786 (c), pp. 5234 and 5240. In the circumstances, a punishment of four years' imprisonment is not to be adjudged excessive or, in itself, to establish bias and prejudice. Appellant's position...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fetter v. City of Richmond
......R. S. 1929, sec. 13312; City of. Aurora v. Stafford, 51 S.W.2d 547, 227 Mo.App. 322;. State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 247; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149; State v. Parsons, 124. Mo. 436; State v. ......
-
Fetter v. City of Richmond, 36931.
......R.S. 1929, sec. 13312; City of Aurora v. Stafford, 51 S.W. (2d) 547, 227 Mo. App. 322; State v. Emert, 103 Mo. 247; State v. Smithson, 106 Mo. 149; State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436; State v. ......
-
State v. Grove, 40105.
...assessed in the instant case cannot be adjudged excessive and certainly does not establish any bias or prejudice of the jury. State v. Zuck, Mo.Sup., 142 S.W.2d 8, and cases there The motion next prayed the Court to sustain defendant's motion for new trial on the ground of newly-discovered ......
- State v. Zuck