State v. Davit

29 Citing cases

  1. State v. Reese

    364 Mo. 1221 (Mo. 1955)   Cited 263 times
    In Reese, the defendant and his companion committed within a two hour time frame a murder during the course of a holdup of a hotel, then an attempted holdup of a liquor store.

    (1) Assignments of error in motion for new trial not carried foward in defendant's brief are waived. State v. Johnson, 245 S.W.2d 43; State v. Tiedt, 229 S.W.2d 582, 360 Mo. 594; State v. Lawson, 181 S.W.2d 508, 352 Mo. 1168; State v. Ramsey, 197 S.W.2d 949, 355 Mo. 720; State v. Kenyon, 126 S.W.2d 245, 343 Mo. 1168; State v. Davit, 125 S.W.2d 47, 343 Mo. 1151. (2) Assignments of error too general in their nature will not be considered by this court. Sec. 547.030, RSMo 1949; State v. Stacker, 180 S.W.2d 719, 352 Mo. 1056; State v. Huddleston, 123 S.W.2d 183; State v. Kennedy, 108 S.W.2d 384. (3) Trial court did not commit error in admitting testimony of Officer Lindsey indicating defendant had been engaged in commission of another crime.

  2. State v. Johnson

    362 Mo. 833 (Mo. 1952)   Cited 36 times
    In State v. Johnson, Mo., 245 S.W.2d 43, this court expressly held that assignments of error in a motion for new trial cannot be retained in a case "merely by declaring he [appellant] has `chosen to argue' only part of the assignments in the motion but that he `urges each and every other ground contained' therein."

    We think not. State v. Mason, 339 Mo. 874, 875, 878(1), 98 S.W.2d 574, 575(2), 577(4); State v. Huett, 340 Mo. 934, 937(1), 104 S.W.2d 252, 253(1); State v. Watson (Mo. Div. 2) 104 S.W.2d 272, 276(3); State v. Goffstein, 342 Mo. 499, 510(3), 116 S.W.2d 65, 71(11); State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 1154(1), 125 S.W.2d 47, 49(1); State v. Kenyon, 343 Mo. 1168, 1176(1), 126 S.W.2d 245, 249(1); State v. Lawson, 352 Mo. 1168, 1176(5), 181 S.W.2d 508, 513(10); State v. Ramsey, 355 Mo. 720, 732(7), 197 S.W.2d 949, 957(14); State v. Tiedt, 360 Mo. 594, 605(7), 229 S.W.2d 582, 589(13). Of these decisions just cited, the Mason case limited its holding to a ruling that appellant cannot invoke assignments which have been impliedly eliminated by omission thereof from his brief.

  3. State v. Lawson

    352 Mo. 1168 (Mo. 1944)   Cited 15 times

    However that decision was limited to appeals where assignments of error have been expressly withdrawn or eliminated by implication because they were omitted from the brief. Yet in State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 1152(1), 125 S.W.2d 47, 49(1) where the appellant's brief made assignments of error which were ignored in his Points and Authorities and Argument, we held they were abandoned, citing the Mason case. It is very doubtful whether an appellant is entitled to a review of assignments merely because he says he is not abandoning them when in fact he is. But we need not decide that question here, because appellant goes on to say that his further assignments have to do with the giving and refusal of instructions and the admission and exclusion of evidence "all relat(ing) either to the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court or the unconstitutionality of this statute."

  4. State v. Scarlett

    486 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. 1972)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Scarlett, 486 S.W.2d 409, 411 (Mo. 1972), the court ruled it was not error to use the trade name as long as the possession of the drug in question was prohibited by statute and defined the drug in the statute to include the chemical name.

    Here the objection was made before any answer had been given and the question was then withdrawn. The refusal of a mistrial was not error. State v. Lee, Mo.Sup., 404 S.W.2d 740, 748-749 [16-17]; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47, 54 [15-17]. Judgment affirmed.

  5. State v. Fields

    434 S.W.2d 507 (Mo. 1968)   Cited 46 times
    In State v. Fields, Mo. 1968, 434 S.W.2d 507, as here, the defendant stipulated that polygraph results and the opinion of the expert could be received into evidence.

    The rule is that objections to testimony must be specific and give a valid reason so that the trial court is afforded an opportunity to rule on the point. State v. Merchant, Mo., 119 S.W.2d 303; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47; State v. Daugherty, Mo., 126 S.W.2d 237; State v. Hobson, Mo., 177 S.W. 374; State v. Todd, Mo., 225 S.W. 909; State v. Johnson, Mo., 192 S.W. 441; State v. Horton, Mo., 153 S.W. 1051. The only objection made to the evidence of the lie detector tests (including the facts and opinions), was that the admission of this evidence, even on the basis of the stipulation, would be a violation of defendant's constitutional rights, as specified. There was no objection at any time founded upon the supposed scientific inaccuracy of the tests. That objection cannot now be considered, even though raised in the motion for new trial.

  6. State v. Brown

    364 Mo. 759 (Mo. 1954)   Cited 13 times
    In State v. Brown, 364 Mo. 759, 267 S.W.2d 682, it is said, "He did make a statement about age qualifications of jurors but he did not say that he challenged this juror for cause. * * *" A party has a right to a jury fairly selected and may reject any who are unqualified or prejudiced.

    Sec. 546.570, RSMo 1949. (4) Assignments of error in motion for new trial not carried forward in defendant's brief are waived. State v. Johnson, 245 S.W.2d 43; State v. Tiedt, 229 S.W.2d 582, 360 Mo. 591; State v. Lawson. 181 S.W.2d 508, 352 Mo. 1168; State v. Ramsey. 197 S.W.2d 949, 355 Mo. 720; State v. Kenyon. 126 S.W.2d 245, 343 Mo. 1168; State v. Davit, 125 S.W.2d 47, 343 Mo. 1151; State v. Watson, 104 S.W.2d 272; State v. Mason, 98 S.W.2d 574, 339 Mo. 874. (5) Assignments of error too general in their nature will not be considered by this court. Sec. 547.030, RSMo 1949; State v. Stucker, 180 S.W.2d 719, 352 Mo. 1056; State v. Huddleston, 123 S.W.2d 183; State v. Kennedy, 108 S.W.2d 384. (6) The trial court did not commit error in overruling defendant's plea in abatement or in its rulings relative to the offer of proof in connection therewith.

  7. State v. Slaten

    252 S.W.2d 330 (Mo. 1952)   Cited 23 times

    The assignments in the motion for a new trial which have been omitted from the brief are deemed to have been abandoned. State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 245 S.W.2d 43, 49; State v. Perry, Mo.Sup., 233 S.W.2d 717, 720; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47; State v. Mason, 339 Mo. 874, 98 S.W.2d 574. The indictment is sufficient, the verdict is responsive and in proper form, there is evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant's guilt as charged, there are no errors upon the record proper, and the judgment is affirmed. WESTHUES and BOHLING, CC., concur.

  8. State v. Abbott

    245 S.W.2d 876 (Mo. 1952)   Cited 22 times

    They were merely testing question, to each of which Maddox answered "I don't know." His answers therefore did not prejudice defendant in any event. State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47, 53; State v. Whipkey, 361 Mo. 1008, 238 S.W.2d 374, 378. Defendants also contend that the cross-examination of Maddox transgressed the limits of his direct examination when Maddox was asked if he had relatives in Pontiac and answered that he had one brother and three sisters in that city. No objection was made to that testimony.

  9. State v. Whipkey

    361 Mo. 1008 (Mo. 1951)   Cited 16 times
    In State v. Whipkey, 361 Mo. 1008, 238 S.W.2d 374, 377 (1951), the court said that the purpose of a trial is the proof of all relevant facts that the jury may determine the truth; and the proof of a fact tending to contradict and possibly discredit other testimony, due to mistake or other cause, of the same witness to another fact is proper or relevant to the issue.

    Reversible error is not established. State v. Ferguson, 278 Mo. 119, 212 S.W. 339, 344[12]; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47, 54[17]. Appellant here mentions the argument wherein the State's attorney asked whether anyone up to the time of trial, except appellant's counsel, had been informed of appellant's version of the occurrence.

  10. State v. McGee

    361 Mo. 309 (Mo. 1950)   Cited 28 times
    In State v. McGee, 361 Mo. 309, 234 S.W.2d 587 (1959), it was held unnecessary that a similar statement be in writing, the court noting that these were not instructions on the law of the case such as are required to be in writing.

    (3) Assignments of error in appellant's motion for new trial which were not brought forward in appellant's brief preserve nothing for review and are therefore waived. State v. Mason, 339 Mo. 874, 98 S.W.2d 574; State v. Huett, 340 Mo. 934, 104 S.W.2d 252; State v. Davit, 343 Mo. 1151, 125 S.W.2d 47. [588] HOLLINGSWORTH, J.