The State v. Lasson

Citation238 S.W. 101,292 Mo. 155
PartiesTHE STATE v. LAWRENCE LASSON, Appellant
Decision Date18 February 1922
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. -- Hon. E. E. Porterfield Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

John T Barker for appellant.

(1) The evidence in this case is wholly insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. State v. Wheaton, 221 S.W 26; State v. Bass, 251 Mo. 126; State v Powell, 266 Mo. 108; State v. Tracy, 225 S.W. 1009; State v. Scott, 177 Mo. 665; State v. Francis, 199 Mo. 671; State v. Adkins, 222 S.W. 431; State v. Ruckman, 253 Mo. 487; State v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; State v. Kelsay, 228 S.W. 754. (2) Any offense committed in this case was larceny and not robbery. The State's evidence shows that the bag was grabbed from the woman's hand and dropped to the sidewalk and picked up by the defendant. No weapons were used and no assault was made. State v. Parker, 262 Mo. 169; State v. Sommers, 12 Mo.App. 374; State v. Willis, 16 Mo.App. 553; State v. Monaghan, 134 P. 77, 146 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1149; State v. Paisley, 36 Mont. 237, 92 P. 566; People v. McGinty, 24 Hun, (N.Y.) 62; People v. Jones, 290 Ill. 603, 8 A. L. R. 357; State v. Fanning, 66 Ga. 167, 4 Am. Crim. 561; State v. Bowlin, 72 Ark. 530, 81 S.W. 838; Davis' Case, 2 N.Y. City Hall Rec. 32; 34 Cyc. 1799; Kelley's Crim. Law, sec. 629; Sec. 3307, R. S. 1919. (3) The cross-examination of defendant was improper. He was asked about living with his wife in adultery before marriage; about conducting a gambling house; about bootlegging whiskey, and many other specific crimes without any attempt to show a conviction. State v. Hillebrand, 225 S.W. 1006; State v. Tracy, 226 S.W. 1011; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 434; State v. Goodwin, 271 Mo. 81; State v. Seay, 222 S.W. 429; State v. Leavitt, 278 Mo. 377; State v. Swearingin, 269 Mo. 185; State v. McDonough, 232 Mo. 234; State v. Harris, 222 S.W. 420; State v. Wigger, 196 Mo. 98; State v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 535; State v. Wellman, 253 Mo. 314; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo. 502. (4) Counsel for defendant requested an hour in which to argue this case. This request was denied and thirty minutes granted. Defendant was represented by two lawyers and the trial lasted two days; nineteen witnesses were examined and the bill of exceptions contains one hundred and seventy-eight pages. This request should have been granted. Reagan v. Co., 180 Mo. 130; Price v. Co., 219 S.W. 706; Newmann v. Co., 109 Mo.App. 221; State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257; Childers v. Com., 161 Ky. 440, 171 S.W. 149; People v. Green, 99 Cal. 564, 34 P. 231; State v. Wingo, 62 Miss. 311; State v. Mayo, 42 Wash. 540, 7 Ann. Cas. 881; State v. Peagler, 110 Ala. 11, 20 So. 363; State v. Hunt, 49 Ga. 255, 15 Am. Rep. 677; People v. Keenan, 13 Cal. 581; Hendricks v. United States, 101 P. 125; State v. Walker, 32 Tex. Crim. 175, 22 S.W. 685; State v. Dille, 34 Ohio St. 617, 32 Am. Rep. 395; Jones v. Commission, 87 Va. 63, 12 So. 226; State v. McLean, 32 Tex. Crim. 521, 24 S.W. 898; State v. Chance, 97 Ga. 346. (5) The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury on all questions of law necessary for their guidance and particularly on the law of larceny, but the court refused to give an instruction on larceny and such failure was reversible error. State v. Spivey, 204 S.W. 261; State v. Parker, 262 Mo. 169; State v. Weinhardt, 253 Mo. 629; State v. Starr, 244 Mo. 181; State v. Weinberg, 245 Mo. 575; State v. Perrigin, 258 Mo. 237; State v. Douglas, 258 Mo. 289; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 185; State v. Smith, 228 S.W. 1061; State v. Chick, 221 S.W. 16; State v. Goode, 220 S.W. 856; Sec. 3312, R. S. 1919; State v. Whitsett, 232 Mo. 529; State v. Holden, 203 Mo. 581. (6) The court erroneously allowed the prosecuting attorney to ask the defendant about conducting a gambling house; illegally selling liquor and committing other specific crimes. Defendant thereupon requested the court to instruct the jury that evidence of other crimes was not admitted as affecting the defendant's guilt or innocence, but merely to discredit his testimony as a witness. The court refused this instruction and this was error. State v. Wellman, 253 Mo. 318; State v. Jones, 249 Mo. 98; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 306; State v. Heusack, 189 Mo. 312; State v. Aushiger, 171 Mo. 606. (7) The cross-examination of defendant's wife in which she was asked about committing adultery before marriage, was highly prejudicial and improper. State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 434; State v. Hillebrand, 225 S.W. 1008; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 865; State v. Wigger, 196 Mo. 98; State v. Tracy, 225 S.W. 1011. (8) The instruction on good character was insufficient to properly advise the jury. State v. Ferguson, 183 S.W. 336; State v. Taylor, 190 S.W. 330; State v. Hutchinson, 186 S.W. 1000; State v. Sloan, 186 S.W. 1002; State v. Whitley, 183 S.W. 317; State v. Tuttle, 192 S.W. 499; State v. Willard, 192 S.W. 437; State v. Burgess, 188 S.W. 135; State v. Santino, 186 S.W. 976. (9) The information is insufficient to support a judgment. It fails to allege that the property was taken with an intent to steal, or to deprive the owner of such property. State v. McLain, 159 Mo. 352; State v. O'Connor, 105 Mo. 121; State v. Scott, 109 Mo. 266; State v. Johnson, 111 Mo. 578; State v. Graves, 185 Mo. 718; State v. Carroll, 214 Mo. 399; State v. Sydnor, 253 Mo. 375. (10) Where defendant requests the court to instruct the jury on all questions of law necessary for their guidance, and then saves an exception for failure to do so, the point is sufficiently preserved. State v. Smith, 228 S.W. 1061; State v. Goode, 220 S.W. 856; State v. Chick, 221 S.W. 16; State v. Spivey, 204 S.W. 261; State v. Perrigin, 258 Mo. 237; State v. Douglas, 258 Mo. 289; State v. Lackey, 230 Mo. 720; State v. Weinberg, 245 Mo. 575; State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271; State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 111; Sec. 4025, R. S. 1919.

Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and J. H. Caruthers, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The information is sufficient, is in approved form and follows the wording of statute. Sec. 3307, R. S. 1919; Kelly's Cr. Law and Prac. sec. 625; State v. Calvert, 209 Mo. 280; State v. Massey, 274 Mo. 584. (2) Where there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict this court will not interfere. State v. Cook, 207 S.W 832; State v. Dinkelkamp, 207 S.W. 771; State v. Rowe, 271 Mo. 88; State v. Long, 257 Mo. 199; State v. Underwood, 263 Mo. 677. (3) Robbery in the first degree is the taking of property of one by means of violence to the person or fear of immediate injury to the person. Kelley's Cr. Law, sec. 629. Two or more persons knowingly acting together in the commission of an offense, what either does in carrying out the unlawful act, is the act of the others. The testimony shows defendant was with Louis Thompson, who knocked and twisted the bag from Mrs. Huddleston's hand and that defendant knowingly and voluntarily and with common intent with Louis Thompson, principal, united with Thompson and assisted in the offense, that of taking by force and violence from Mrs. Huddleston the bag of money. Wharton's Cr. Ev. (8 Ed.) sec. 440; State v. Kuhlman, 152 Mo. 103; State v. Cohen, 254 Mo. 450; State v. Richardson, 248 Mo. 563. (4) Defendant was not cross-examined about living with his wife before marriage. (a) The testimony relative to selling whiskey, playing cards, associating with Louis Thompson, and loaning his car to Mr. Portman, was all stricken out on objection, and the jury instructed to disregard same in considering their verdict, all in accordance with the request of defendant. (b) He can be cross-examined on all facts and circumstances connected with the matters stated in his direct examination, or which test his recollection, means of knowledge, or weaken the force of his testimony. Sec. 4036, R. S. 1919; State v. Keener, 225 Mo. 500; State v. Meyers, 221 Mo. 612; State v. Foley, 247 Mo. 638. (5) A witness for the defendant in a criminal case who testifies to latter's good character may, on cross-examination, be interrogated as to his sources of information and his knowledge of the character of the accused, although other and independent crimes charged against the defendant may thereby be disclosed. State v. Crow, 107 Mo. 345; State v. McLaughlin, 149 Mo. 32; State v. Parker, 172 Mo. 206; State v. Harris, 209 Mo. 442. Such cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court. State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 305; State v. Seay, 222 S.W. 429. (6) It is within the discretion of the court at the close of the evidence to limit the time to be occupied by counsel in addressing the jury. This court will not interfere unless the discretion is abused. State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257; State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 42; State v. Williams, 69 Mo. 112; State v. Baker, 136 Mo. 83. (7) There is no evidence that warrants an instruction on larceny. According to the testimony defendant was aiding and abetting Thompson in forcibly taking the money bag from Mrs. Huddleston, which constitutes robbery in the first degree by both. State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 110; State v. Edwards, 23 Mo. 539; State v. Green, 229 Mo. 655. (8) It was perfectly competent to show, if it was a fact, that defendant's wife had committed adultery before her marriage to affect her credibility as a witness. Even the defendant's reputation for morality may be inquired about. Kelly's Cr. Law, sec. 381; State v. Shields, 13 Mo. 237; State v. Beckner, 194 Mo. 288; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 865. (9) Instruction on good character of the defendant was in approved form and sufficient. State v. Cushenberry, 157 Mo. 187. (10) The court is not required to give of its own motion instructions upon all the possible points of the case, nor all the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT