State v. Bohlen

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Bohlen

487 S.W.2d 543, 1972 Mo. LEXIS 945

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedDecember 11, 1972

DocketNo. 55936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 487 S.W.2d 543 (State v. Bohlen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bohlen, 487 S.W.2d 543, 1972 Mo. LEXIS 945 (Mo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

SEILER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction by the jury of second degree burglary of a drug store at 3849 Finney, St. Louis, followed by a sentence of four years’ imprisonment by the court under the second offenders statute. Again it is a case where we have jurisdiction by virtue of the appeal being here on January 1, 1972.

The ground briefed on appeal is that'the trial court “erred when it failed to read the mandatory MAI instruction 2.01 to the jury prior to commencement of State’s case and/or to include said instruction with the instructions given to the jury at the close of the case as provided in Supreme Court Rule 70.01(a), [V.A.M.R.].”

The point is overruled for two reasons: First, it is held in State v. Reed (Mo.Sup.) 452 S.W.2d 71, 74 that “ . . . the pattern instructions of MAI are applicable only to civil cases . . . ” Second, MAI 2.01 in its present form is not appropriate for a criminal case, as it contains language which might be interpreted by the jurors as intimating the defendant in a criminal case should or must make an opening statement, put on evidence, or is required to do more, if he so chooses, than to put the state to its proof.

Judgment affirmed.

HOLMAN, P. J., and RICKHOFF, Special Judge, concur. BARDGETT, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SEILER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction by the jury of second degree burglary of a drug store at 3849 Finney, St. Louis, followed by a sentence of four years’ imprisonment by the court under the second offenders statute. Again it is a case where we have jurisdiction by virtue of the appeal being here on January 1, 1972.

The ground briefed on appeal is that'the trial court “erred when it failed to read the mandatory MAI instruction 2.01 to the jury prior to commencement of State’s case and/or to include said instruction with the instructions given to the jury at the close of the case as provided in Supreme Court Rule 70.01(a), [V.A.M.R.].”

The point is overruled for two reasons: First, it is held in State v. Reed (Mo.Sup.) 452 S.W.2d 71, 74 that “ . . . the pattern instructions of MAI are applicable only to civil cases . . . ” Second, MAI 2.01 in its present form is not appropriate for a criminal case, as it contains language which might be interpreted by the jurors as intimating the defendant in a criminal case should or must make an opening statement, put on evidence, or is required to do more, if he so chooses, than to put the state to its proof.

Judgment affirmed.

HOLMAN, P. J., and RICKHOFF, Special Judge, concur. BARDGETT, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 S.W.2d 543, 1972 Mo. LEXIS 945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bohlen-mo-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack