State v. Howard

• Decision Date: 14 May 1907
• Citation: 203 Mo. 600,102 S.W. 504
• Parties: STATE v. HOWARD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

102 S.W. 504

203 Mo. 600

STATE v. HOWARD.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2

May 14, 1907.

1. BURGLARY—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence examined, and held to sustain a conviction for burglary.

2. SAME—EVIDENCE—ADMISSIBILITY.

In a trial for burglary, an objection to an officer's testimony, relative to breaking into a house in which defendant was found in possession of the stolen property, that the officer had no warrant to arrest defendant, was without merit.

3. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS—FORM.

An assignment that the court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to ask immaterial, impertinent, and insolent questions is too general to call for consideration.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Jno. W. Wofford, Judge.

Harry Howard was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Philip D. Clear, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

GANTT, J.

From a conviction of burglary in the criminal court of Jackson county at Kansas City, the defendant appeals.

The prosecution was commenced November 1, 1905, by information filed by the prosecuting attorney. The burglary for which defendant was prosecuted was committed on the 21st of October, 1905, by opening a transom in the building known as 509 West Eighth street, Kansas City. Miss Annabelle Beamguard rented and occupied a room in this house and worked for a restaurant near by. Her custom was to go to work about 10 o'clock each morning and work until 2:30 in the afternoon. On the 21st of October, Miss Beamguard had in this room a black suit, a silk petticoat, and a grip, with her initials on it, which were of the value of $35. When she went to work that morning she locked her door and window, and when she returned in the afternoon she found the door and window still locked, but the transom up. She identified her clothing and satchel in the possession of the police, and they were offered in evidence on the trial. The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the defendant was seen that day in the neighborhood of this building running. The grip bag was found in a pawn shop in Armourdale, Kan., pursuant to information given to the police officer by the defendant three or four days after the burglary. The pawnbroker testified that the defendant came to his shop on the 21st of October, and pawned this grip for 50 cents, and gave his name as Brown. The initials had been scratched off. Police Officer Bowling testified that about half past 9 or 10 o'clock at night, a day or two after the burglary, he and other officers went together to the place where the defendant was staying; that they surrounded the house, knocked at the front door, and demanded admission. There was a light in the house, and some one inside asked "who was there." The officer replied: "Chief of police, who wanted to speak to Mr. Howard." And immediately the lights were turned out. After various efforts to get the parties within the house to open the door, the officer finally caused the door to be broken open, and, as they did so, some one started to go out of the side door, and the officer hurried to that door, and found the defendant with his overcoat and hat on. In this room, where the defendant was, was found some lady's clothes, which belonged to Miss Beamguard. The defendant said he had bought this suit in St. Joseph about two weeks before. The evidence further tended to show that the defendant and a Miss Darling were living in this house at the time it was raided by the police. On the part of the defendant, the evidence tended to show that he and Miss Darling occupied different rooms, though very friendly with each other; that the defendant purchased a silk petticoat and a dress in St. Joseph some time prior to this burglary and gave the same to Miss Darling. Miss Darling testified that defendant pawned a watch in order to raise some of the money necessary to pay for these clothes. Another witness for the defendant testified to seeing a man with these clothes trying to sell them down at the stockyards, and that he went to see the defendant for the purpose of trying to make a sale. He also had a valise,...