State v. Murta

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Murta

551 S.W.2d 943, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2548

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 1977

DocketNo. 10466

StatusPublished

This text of 551 S.W.2d 943 (State v. Murta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Murta, 551 S.W.2d 943, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2548 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

By information, defendant was charged with possession¹ of phendimetrazine tablets. In orally instructing the jury panel after it was sworn for voir dire examination, the court stated that defendant was charged with possession of the controlled substance. MAI-CR 1.02. By Instruction No. 4 (MAI-CR 14.10), the court charged on the crime of possession. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant “guilty of selling a controlled substance.” After overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial, the “Court fixed punishment in accordance with jury verdict” and, in his notice of appeal, defendant stated that “The offense of which appellant was convicted was possession of controlled substance.” ²

Prom the foregoing it is obvious that defendant was not charged with the offense of which he was convicted. The verdict, not being responsive to the issues, is fatally defective. State v. Barnes, 492 S.W.2d 729, 730[2 — 3] (Mo.1978); State v. Bird, 242 S.W.2d 576, 577[3] (Mo.1951). The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

By information, defendant was charged with possession¹ of phendimetrazine tablets. In orally instructing the jury panel after it was sworn for voir dire examination, the court stated that defendant was charged with possession of the controlled substance. MAI-CR 1.02. By Instruction No. 4 (MAI-CR 14.10), the court charged on the crime of possession. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant “guilty of selling a controlled substance.” After overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial, the “Court fixed punishment in accordance with jury verdict” and, in his notice of appeal, defendant stated that “The offense of which appellant was convicted was possession of controlled substance.” ²

Prom the foregoing it is obvious that defendant was not charged with the offense of which he was convicted. The verdict, not being responsive to the issues, is fatally defective. State v. Barnes, 492 S.W.2d 729, 730[2 — 3] (Mo.1978); State v. Bird, 242 S.W.2d 576, 577[3] (Mo.1951). The judgment, therefore, is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 S.W.2d 943, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-murta-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack