Case ID: sw2d_506/html/0059-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Samuel L. TOWNSEL, Appellant.
    No. KCD 26672.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District.
    Feb. 4, 1974.
    Willard B. Bunch, Public Defender, Robert A. Simons, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
    John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O’Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
    Before PRITCHARD, P. J., and SWOF-FORD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a conviction before a jury of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm and a sentence of three years. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. He argues that there was no showing of the use of force or a weapon which would constitute an assault under § 559.190, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.

The alleged assault was accomplished by the beating of the victim and by spraying her with chemical “mace”. It is clear that a conviction for assault may be sustained where an attack is made by the use of hands and fists. State v. Himmelmann, 399 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.1966); State v. Gillespie, 336 S.W.2d 677 (Mo.1960); State v. Crossman, 464 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.1971). There being no contradictory evidence as to the basic facts of the assault, the appellant’s contention must be denied.

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and therefore, under Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R., the judgment is affirmed.