Court Opinion

ID: 9778118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:33:32.644361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:03.934007
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring in result.
It would appear that the principal opinion approves a rule that a “ ‘punishment which is within the statutory limits for the offense, * * * is not cruel and unusual because of its duration unless so disproportionate to the offense committed so as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances.’ ”
The italicized portion of the above statement appears in State v. Brownridge, 353 S.W.2d 715, 718 (Mo.1963) and was cited with approval in State v. Agee, 474 S.W.2d 817, 821, 822 (Mo.1971). In Brownridge, Division No. 1 of this Court did not note the fact that in State v. Wolfe, 343 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Mo. banc 1961), this Court en banc had ruled that “ ‘ * * * when the punishment assessed is within the range prescribed by statute, it cannot be adjudged to be excessive by an appellate court. * *.’ ”
In State v. Rizor, 353 Mo. 368,182 S.W.2d 525, 529 (1944), the view was expressed that this Court has “often treated it as a cogni*28zable question on appeal if there was evidence of passion and prejudice” on the part of the jury in assessing punishment.
I concede, as indicated in Rizor, that an argument can be made for retreating from the rigidity of the Wolfe rule. I doubt that we should abrogate the Wolfe rule. I am certain we should not do so by indirection.
I concur only in the result.