 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Williams4/22/2003
Mr. Williams was convicted, after a bench trial, of one count of assault in the second degree under section 565.060, RSMo 2000, and one count of armed criminal action under section 571.015. Mr. Williams filed a post-conviction Motion for Arrest of Judgment under Rule 29.13(a). At the hearing on this motion, Mr. Williams also claimed a violation of the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and asked that the trial court reverse the convictions and grant him a new trial because the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. The trial court denied the motion and the Brady claim and sentenced Mr. Williams as a prior, persistent, and dangerous offender to seven years in prison for assault and five years in prison for armed criminal action, to run concurrently. Mr. Williams raises five points on appeal. In his first point, Mr. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the amended information on count one, assault in the second degree. In his second point, Mr. Williams challenges the sufficiency of the amended information on count three, armed criminal action. In his third point, Mr. Williams claims the trial court erred in failing to grant him a new trial because the State committed a Brady violation. In his fourth and fifth points, Mr. Williams asserts that both the amended information and the evidence were insufficient on the armed criminal action count because there was no allegation or evidence that he used his vehicle with the intent to cause death or serious physical harm to Ms. Mosley. This court finds that Mr. Williams failed to demonstrate prejudice from the alleged deficiencies in count one and count three of the amended information, the trial court did not err in denying Mr. Williams' claim that the State committed a Brady violation, and the amended information and evidence were sufficient to prove armed criminal action because intent to cause death or serious physical injury is not the correct standard for determining if an ordinary object is a dangerous instrument. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background
On May 9, 2001, around 11:00 P.M., police officers responded to a disturbance call at 3018 Highland in Kansas City. When they located 3018, they saw a man in a white T-shirt run out of the front door. A woman ran out of the house after him. The man, later identified as Mr. Williams, reached the street and got into his car, which was parked in front of the house. The woman, later identified as Marva Mosley, ran into the street, and waved her arms at the police officers. She ran in front of Mr. Williams' car and stood between it and a van that was parked in front of it. She moved to the middle of the street and continued to wave her arms at the police.
At that time, Mr. Williams started his car and began to pull out of his parking space. He went forward, backed up, and then went forward out of the space until Ms. Mosley was directly in front of the car. Ms. Mosley placed both hands on the hood of the car and started backing up while Mr. Williams moved the car forward. Mr. Williams then accelerated, and the front end of the car struck Ms. Mosley in her thighs. The impact caused Ms. Mosley's legs to extend out away from the front of the car as she was thrown onto the hood of the car. She rolled off the hood on the passenger side and fell onto the ground, rolling approximately two times. Mr. Williams continued to drive down the street.
After Ms. Mosley was hit by the car, the police officers called for another police car and an ambulance to treat her. The officers then pursued Mr. Williams. They caught up with Mr. Williams at a stoplight a few blocks away
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|