204 S.W. 1 (Mo. 1918), State v. Riles

Citation:204 S.W. 1, 274 Mo. 618
Opinion Judge:FARIS, J.
Party Name:THE STATE v. CARL RILES, Appellant
Attorney:J. S. Gossom for appellant. Frank W. McAlister, Attorney-General, and C. P. Le Mire, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
Case Date:June 03, 1918
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

204 S.W. 1 (Mo. 1918)

274 Mo. 618

THE STATE

v.

CARL RILES, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

June 3, 1918

Appeal from Pemiscot Circuit Court. -- Hon. Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.

Affirmed.

J. S. Gossom for appellant.

Frank W. McAlister, Attorney-General, and C. P. Le Mire, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict and this court has held that such verdict will not be disturbed. State v. Maurer, 255 Mo. 168; State v. Barton, 214 Mo. 321; State v. Chenault, 212 Mo. 137. (2) A pistol is a firearm within the meaning of the statute, even though same may be unloaded. But, under the evidence in this case, even though the aforesaid statement were not true, still the appellant would be guilty for the reason that it is shown conclusively that the appellant had cartridges for said pistol in his possession and placed said pistol, together with cartridges therefor, on the counter before him upon entering the store in question. State v. Morris, 263 Mo. 351; State v. Sebastian, 81 Mo. 514; State v. Larkin, 24 Mo.App. 410; Redus v. State, 82 Ala. 53; State v. Tapit, 52 W.Va. 473; Commonwealth v. Murphy, 166 Mass. 171. (3) It is a well-settled rule of law that the memory of a witness may be refreshed by the use of written instruments, memoranda, or book entries. Hence there can be no reason why a witness may not be permitted to refresh his memory from the transcript of his former testimony. But even if this were not true the appellant was not prejudiced in this case, for the reason that none of the answers contained in the notes shown the witness, were read to the jury or introduced in evidence in any manner whatsoever. State v. Miller, 234 Mo. 597; State v. Kennedy, 154 Mo. 268; State v. Mathews, 88 Mo. 125; Kelley's Crim. Law & Prac., sec. 373. (4) The remarks of the prosecuting attorney were not sufficiently offensive to require a rebuke, hence there was no reversible error here. State v. McMullin, 170 Mo. 682; State v. Rasco, 239 Mo. 580; State v. Wana, 245 Mo. 562.

OPINION

[274 Mo. 620] FARIS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Pemiscot County upon the charge of having in his possession when intoxicated a dangerous and deadly weapon. He was prosecuted by indictment, which indictment, in addition to the count charging him as above, also in the first count thereof charged him with carrying a concealed weapon. He was convicted on the second count only, and his punishment assessed at a fine of one hundred dollars. From this conviction and the judgment bottomed thereon, he has appealed.

Since one of the most serious and strenuous contentions urged is that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain this conviction, and since in connection with this point, we find...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP