[Download] "State Missouri v. Alvin Holt Edmonds" by Supreme Court of Missouri Division 2 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Missouri v. Alvin Holt Edmonds
- Author : Supreme Court of Missouri Division 2
- Release Date : January 12, 1961
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
A jury found Alvin Holt Edmonds guilty of "burglary in the second degree and stealing." He was charged in one count with both
offenses, there was an allegation and proof of prior felony convictions, and the court in pronouncing sentence fixed his punishment
at five years' imprisonment for each offense "to run consecutively" - a total of ten years' imprisonment. Laws Mo. 1959, H.B.
260. In three of his assignments in his motion for a new trial the appellant challenges the amendment and sufficiency of the information.
At the outset the court is confronted with the state's claim that these assignments in his motion are lacking in detail and
particularity (Sup. Ct. Rule 27.20; V.A.M.S., Sec. 547.030) and that therefore the appellant has "saved nothing for review."
The same contention is made against four assignments directed to or having to do with the appellant's claim that the evidence
is not "sufficient to allow the State to take said cause to the jury." These matters are again briefly mentioned because there
is a misconception as to the essential purpose and applicability of the statute and the rule. There are a few cases in which
the court has inadvertently applied the rule or the statute to assignments relating to informations, and there may be some
instances in which it is necessary to assign in detail objections to an information. But an information has always been a
part of the record proper or "upon the record" before the court (V.A.M.S., Sec. 547.270), and generally the sufficiency of
the information is open for the court's consideration regardless of the particularity of the motion for a new trial. State
v. Biven, (Mo.) 151 S.W.2d 1114, 1116; State v. Mallory, (Mo.) 336 S.W.2d 383, 384. So also as to the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain the conviction, an assignment that the verdict is against the "weight of the evidence" preserves nothing for review
because, as a general rule, the appellate court is not concerned with the weight of the evidence. But when a series of assignments
in the totality of their effect or specifically challenge the substantiality of the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain the verdict and conviction is reviewable in this court. State v. Mallory, supra; State v. Washington, (Mo.) 335
S.W.2d 23; State v. Daegele, (Mo.) 302 S.W.2d 20, 23; State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 1076, 204 S.W.2d 774, 777.