State v. PowersState v. Powers
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bohling, Westhues, Barrett (per curiam)
Appellant was convictеd of the misdemeanor of keeping a bawdy house and fined $250 in the circuit court of Greene сounty.
Appeals involving misdemeanors are reviewable in the courts of appeals (Stаte ex rel. v. Trimble (Banc), 310 Mo. 274, 282, 275 S. W. 536, 538-[2]; State v. Tummons, 225 Mo. App. 429, 432, 37 S. W. (2d) 499, 500-[1]) in the absence of some live constitutional question (State v. Bressie, 304 Mo. 71, 77, 262 S. W. 1015, 1016[3], and cases infra). Appellant‘s motion for new trial (she filed no brief here) mentioned no constitutional question. Examining the record before us, we find a motion to suppress certain evidence which asserts as one of the grounds therefоr that certain personal property was seized by the officers in an unlawful search in cоntravention of specified constitutional provisions. This motion to suppress was a part of the bill of exceptions and the ruling a matter of exception. The sole reference thereto in appellant‘s motion for new trial is that “the court erred over the objectiоn and exception at the time in overruling defendant‘s motion to suppress evidence.”
The instant assignment in appellant‘s motion for nеw trial, as contended by the learned attorney general, is too general, vague and indefinitе to preserve any issue, constitutional or other, for appellate review. Assignments in motiоns for new trial in criminal cases stating only general conclusions were held insufficient soon after 1925. Unless the assignment specifies the reasons why the ruling was erroneous it presents nothing for review on appeal. State v. Carter, 342 Mo. 439, 442 (III), 116 S. W. (2d) 21, 22[4]-; State v. Huddleston (Mo.), 123 S. W. (2d) 183, 184[1-4]; State v. Peters (Mo.), 123 S. W. (2d) 34, 38-[10], among others. Reasons stated in the brief but not in the motion fоr new trial are of no avail. State v. Ellis (Mo.), 159 S. W. (2d) 675, 676[5]. The words in the assignment “over the objection and exception at the time” merely indicate that the spot is marked in the record and add nothing to the asserted general conclusion. They state no grounds or causes for the error in writing in the motion. State v. Bagby, 338 Mo. 951, 962(II), 93 S. W. (2d) 241, 247[4]-; State v. McKeever, 339 Mo. 1066, 1087-[15], 101 S. W. (2d) 22, 33[37]. ” ‘The court erred in overruling defendant‘s motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence’ preserves nothing. State v. Thompson, 338 Mo. 897, 901-(I), 92 S. W. (2d) 892, 893[1]. See State v. Londе, 345 Mo. 185, 194[5], 132 S. W. (2d) 501, 506-[12].
It long has been essential to the preservation of a constitutional issue for apрellate review that it be preserved in the motion for new trial. State v. Gamma (1908), 215 Mo. 100, 103, 114 S. W. 619, 620, states: “No mention is made of thе Constitution in any of the instructions either given or refused, nor is there in the motion for a new trial —the only means by which the point could have been preserved, even if it had previously been raised.” If nоt preserved in the motion for new trial by a sufficient assignment, a constitutional question, even though it bе theretofore in the case, may not be resurrected on appeal. State v. Williams, 337 Mо. 987, 989, 87 S. W. (2d) 423, 424[2, 3]-; State ex rel. v. Webb City, 333 Mo. 1127, 1130, 64 S. W. (2d) 597, 598-[4]; Red School Dist. v. West Alton School Dist. (Mo.), 159 S. W. (2d) 676, 677[1, 2], The question should be kept alive in any brief filed here. Little River Drainage Dist. v. Houck (Banc), 282 Mo. 458, 460, 222 S. W. 384, 385.
A few Missouri misdemeanor cases transferrеd to a court of appeals because a constitutional question had ceasеd to be a live issue are: State v. Bell (Mo.), 289 S. W. 834[1, 2] (where failure to except to overruling of motion to supprеss caused constitutional issue to drop out of case); State v. Tatman, 312 Mo. 134, 137, 278 S. W. 713, 714[6], (assignment considered averment of mere conclusion)-; State v. Monroe (Mo.), 278 S. W. 723, 724[2], (where no bill of exceptions was before the court); State v. Selleck (Mo.), 46 S. W. (2d) 570, 571-[2]; State v. Baker (Mo.), 274 S. W. 359, 360-[4]; State v. Grant, 194 Mo. 364, 92 S. W. 698. Consult 21 C. J. S., Courts, Sec. 401, n. 29; Sec. 404; 15 C. J., Courts, Sec. 511, n. 60; Sec. 512; 24 C. J. S., Criminal Law, Sec. 1642.
The constitutional question, assuming it was timely and properly raised and for a time preserved, ceased to be a live issue in the instant case when appellant failed to preserve it in the motion for new trial and at the time this appeal was granted there wаs no constitutional question vesting appellate jurisdiction of this misdemeanor in this court.
We think a disрosition of the case on the merits might have consumed less time and effort.
The cause is transfеrred to the Springfield Court of Appeals.
Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.
PER CURIAM:—The foregoing opinion by Bohling, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. All the judges concur.