295 S.W. 82 (Mo. 1927), 27551, The State v. Wilhite
|Citation:||295 S.W. 82, 317 Mo. 388|
|Opinion Judge:||White, J.|
|Party Name:||The State v. William E. Wilhite, Appellant|
|Attorney:||Verne Lacy for appellant. North T. Gentry, Attorney-General, and A. B. Lovan, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.|
|Case Date:||June 03, 1927|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. G. A. Wurdeman, Judge.
(1) The indictment is insufficient in law, and does not charge that the defendant committed any offense against the laws of the State, because it omits the charge that the Citizens Bank of Florissant was a corporation in charge of its agent, Joseph Pondrum, but charges that the property alleged to have been stolen belonged to said Joseph Pondrum, while the evidence admitted tended to show ownership in the Citizens Bank of Florissant, and there is no evidence in the record that the Citizens Bank of Florissant was a corporation at the time in question, and defendant was entitled to be informed in the indictment before trial that the State would attempt to prove the ownership of the property to be in the Citizens Bank of Florissant. State v. Jordan, 289 S.W. 540; State v. Hurt, 285 S.W. 976; State v. Woods, 285 S.W. 737. (2) The court erred in refusing to sustain and give and read to the jury the demurrer to the evidence offered by the defendant at the close of the whole case. State v. Lasson, 238 S.W. 101; State v. Bater, 232 S.W. 1012; State v. Woodard, 273 S.W. 1050. (3) The court erred in failing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. State v. Bennett, 297 Mo. 190; State v. Lyle, 296 Mo. 439, 246 S.W. 883; State v. Miller, 292 Mo. 135, 237 S.W. 498. (4) The court erred in giving and reading to the jury Instruction 1, because said instruction assumes that the defendant stole the property described in the indictment, and leaves it to the jury to determine whether or not the property belonged to Pondrum. State v. Lee, 272 Mo. 121.
(1) The indictment is sufficient and is in a form approved by this court. State v. Dickens, 285 S.W. 445. (2) If the defendant was of the opinion that the court failed to give all proper and needful instructions, exceptions should have been saved. This the defendant did not do. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 111. This assignment in the motion for a new trial is so indefinite that it does not indicate what error, if any, the trial court committed. It is true that this case was tried a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP