State v. Morris

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Laster

    365 Mo. 1076 (Mo. 1956)   Cited 54 times

    (2) The trial court erred in failing on its own initiative, and without any request or objection on the part of defense counsel, to declare a mistrial during the closing argument of the state prosecuting attorney because the prosecuting attorney excited and inflamed the jury with highly inflammatory and prejudicial statements, thereby arousing the passions, bias and prejudices of the jury. State v. Tiedt, 357 Mo. 155, 206 S.W.2d 524; State v. Jackson, 336 Mo. 1069, 83 S.W.2d 87; State v. Morris, 248 S.W.2d 847. (3) The trial court erred in refusing to reduce the punishment of death, as assessed by the jury, to life imprisonment as requested in paragraph eighteen and the prayer of the motion for new trial because the verdict was excessive and a result of the bias, passion and prejudice of the jury, which was incensed and outraged by the enormous damage to state property and in a state of fear and unrest aroused by the occurrence of the riot within the penitentiary, and the highly inflammatory and prejudicial argument of the prosecuting attorney as noted in Point (2) of the argument herein set out, which argument instilled in the minds of the jury a fear and hate of the defendant and all inmates of the penitentiary.

  2. State v. Duisen

    428 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. 1968)   Cited 34 times

    Here, defendant admitted nothing, and put the State strictly to its proof. In State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847, the Court discussed a very similar situation. Our review of the evidence shows that the exhibits were used to a substantial extent on the issue of identity; they were also material in that they corroborated the oral statements of the defendant himself and the testimony of Clubb, particularly as to the shaving off of all the hair, and the putting of defendant's clothes on the girl.

  3. State v. Tyson

    363 Mo. 1242 (Mo. 1953)   Cited 27 times
    In State v. Tyson, Mo., 258 S.W.2d 651, we held (l.c. 654): "It is not a valid objection that witnesses have testified to matters shown by photographs because pictures give a much clearer impression of many things than any oral description and that is the reason for using them.

    State v. McHarness, 255 S.W.2d 826. (3) The court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to state's exhibit No. 8. (4) The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the testimony of Officer Crowley concerning the statement made by appellant to Crowley at the police station. State v. Green, 236 S.W.2d 298; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Sec. 425, p. 379; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th Ed.), Sec. 409, p. 652; McDaniel v. Commonwealth, 183 Va., 481, 32 S.E.2d 667; Elkins v. State, 250 Ala. 672, 35 So.2d 693. (5) The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the introduction into evidence of state's exhibit No. 5. State v. Morris, 248 S.W.2d 847; State v. Finn, 243 S.W.2d 67; State v. Porter, 357 Mo. 405, 208 S.W.2d 240. (6) The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objection to the cross-examination of his witness, Lee Williams. (7) Any error in the trial court's sustaining the state's objection to the questioning of appellant's witness, Dix, relative to threats alleged to have been made to him against appellant by the deceased was eliminated by the subsequent testimony regarding such threats. State v. Webb, 205 S.W. 187; State v. Thurston, 242 S.W. 908. (8) The trial court did not err in refusing to sustain the appellant's objections to the cross-examination of his witness, Eugene McFarland. (9) The court did not err in refusing to sustain appellant's objections to the cross-examination of appellant relative to his visits to his uncle and aunt. (10) The trial court did not err in refusing a directed verdict on the appellant's motion at the close of all of the evidence.

  4. State v. Peal

    463 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. 1971)   Cited 28 times
    Holding the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on both self-defense and accident because the "defendant alone can not provide the basis for such inconsistent defenses"

    If proved by proper evidence, a defendant is entitled to have inconsistent defenses submitted to the jury. State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847; State v. Wright, 352 Mo. 66, 175 S.W.2d 866. The rule in this state is that the testimony of a defendant against interest does not rise to the dignity of a conclusive judicial admission and hence, if justified by other evidence, he is entitled to an instruction on self-defense even though inconsistent with his own testimony.

  5. State v. Sims

    395 S.W.2d 445 (Mo. 1965)   Cited 15 times

    Admission of photographs is mainly within the sound discretion of the trial court and are properly admitted when helpful to show relevant facts. State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 240 S.W.2d 671, 675; State v. Morris, Mo. Sup., 248 S.W.2d 847, 849; State v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 312 S.W.2d 818, 822; State v. Anderson, Mo.Sup., 375 S.W.2d 116, 121. We hold there was no error in admitting these photographs in evidence.

  6. State v. Perkins

    382 S.W.2d 701 (Mo. 1964)   Cited 22 times

    The trial court did not err in admitting them. State v. Moore, Mo., 303 S.W.2d 60, 66[5]; State v. Laspy, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 357, 361[7]; State v. Tyson, 363 Mo. 1242, 258 S.W.2d 651, 654[4]; State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847, 849[2]. Next the defendant charges that the trial court committed prejudicial error in overruling defendant's objections to the jury argument made by the prosecuting attorney "which was an indirect reference to the appellant-defendant's failure to testify" and in refusing to grant a mistrial.

  7. State v. Selle

    367 S.W.2d 522 (Mo. 1963)   Cited 76 times
    Holding a prosecuting attorney prosecutes on behalf of the state

    In the case at bar, the cross-examiner propounded to defendant's character witnesses a series of hypothetical questions, each of which improperly assumed supposed facts and called for an opinion predicated thereupon. But, with respect to the improper questions prior to the sex crimes question, the objections by defendant's counsel were not adequate and timely [State v. Slaten, Mo., 252 S.W.2d 330, 333-334(3-5)] and no error was, or properly could have been, assigned in the motion for new trial [Rule 27.20; State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847, 852], so we are limited to the sex crimes question as to which there was an adequate and timely motion for a mistrial and a particularized assignment of error in the motion for new trial. However, we are of the considered opinion that the sex crimes question, climaxing as it did a series of patently improper but obviously less prejudicial questions, injected poison that was not neutralized by the relatively mild comment that "the court has sustained the objection to the last question, and you shall disregard any import of that question as it stands now."

  8. State v. Hester

    331 S.W.2d 535 (Mo. 1960)   Cited 14 times
    Addressing defendant’s "claim that he was not accorded the preliminary examination contemplated by the statutes and the rules of this court" because the preliminary hearing was "a farce and there was no competent proof’ by the State from which the magistrate could have found probable cause

    The infliction of the mandatory minimum punishment does not, of course, demonstrate passion and prejudice on the part of the jury and his assignment to that effect, and that the verdict is contrary to the instructions and against the law and the evidence are meaningless and so lacking in detailed particularity or demonstration as to not be reviewable in this court. State v. Hernandez, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 494; State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847; State v. Copeland, 335 Mo. 140, 71 S.W.2d 746. And in connection with the assignments of error, there was no request for an instruction on the credibility of the witnesses, it was not a subject upon which the court was in any event bound to instruct the jury (V.A.M.S. Sec. 546.070(4)) and the consequence is that the appellant may not complain of the court's failure to give such an instruction. State v. Drake, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 374, 377.

  9. State v. Smith

    324 S.W.2d 702 (Mo. 1959)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Smith, 324 S.W.2d 702 (Mo. 1959) the substance of the false representations charged in the indictment was that the defendant represented to Mrs. Smith that the electrical wires and system of her house were defective and that her house was in danger of burning down unless she did something about it and that he had attached a list of materials in performance of work he did.

    He may not now complain. State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847[7, 9]; State v. Farris, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 983. Defendant's last complaint, so far as essential to an understanding of the issue, is that "the court erred in not giving an instruction that if the jury found and believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that if defendant was expressing an opinion" the defendant would not be guilty as charged.

  10. State v. Burns

    322 S.W.2d 736 (Mo. 1959)   Cited 38 times
    Finding a conflict existed when defense counsel represented the defendant before becoming the county’s elected prosecutor and participating in prosecuting the defendant’s case

    And when an error or wrong is committed in the course of a criminal trial, so grievous as to prevent a fair trial, the trial court may intervene of its own motion and without objection, and may, if necessary, declare a mistrial. State v. Laster, 365 Mo. 1076, 293 S.W.2d 300, certiorari denied Laster v. State, 77 S.Ct. 237, 352 U.S. 936, 1 L.Ed.2d 167; State v. Rhoden, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 75; State v. Morris, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 847, 852; State v. Sickles, 220 Mo.App. 290, 286 S.W. 432. And the trial court may, for the same cause, grant a new trial. State v. Rhoden, supra. If the trial courts have that inherent power, we see no reason why the appellate courts should have less.