State v. Riney
| Decision Date | 19 January 1897 |
| Citation | 38 S.W. 718,137 Mo. 102 |
| Parties | The State v. Riney, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Platte Circuit Court. -- Hon. Wm. S. Herndon, Judge.
Affirmed.
G. W Broadus and A. S. J. Beery for appellant.
(1) The court erred in not granting the continuance as asked by defendant. State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 241; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 617. (2) The court erred in permitting Krause (who was jointly indicted with defendant) to testify. See State v. Chyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395. (3) The verdict is against the law and the evidence. (4) The court did not properly instruct on the law of the presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property; it was not sufficiently comprehensive to include a rebuttal of the presumption of guilt by proof of an alibi. State v Sidney, 74 Mo. 390; State v. North, 95 Mo. 616.
R. F Walker, attorney-general, F. M. Wilson, prosecuting attorney, and J. W. Coburn for the state.
(1) "It has been suggested that an amendment to the application should have been permitted, but this is certainly not the usual practice and if it were this is a matter which should rest with the discretion of the court." State v. Good, 132 Mo. 131. (2) The court very properly declined and refused to permit the defendant to amend his application for a continuance, which was good in no respect and had been by the court overruled. (3) The court very properly admitted the testimony of witness Crouse. He was competent and his testimony material. State v. Umble, 115 Mo. 461; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95. (4) The instructions given by the court clearly declared the law and are sufficient. They presented and advised the jury as to the issues presented under the indictment and the testimony. (5) The exclusive possession of a portion of the goods was shown in the defendant and authorized the instructions given upon that point. State v. Blue, 136 Mo. 41.
The defendant was indicted jointly with Lewis Wright at the December term, 1895, of the circuit court of Platte county, for burglary and larceny from a car belonging to the Kansas City, St. Joe & Council Bluffs Railroad, at East Leavenworth, a station in Platte county, Missouri.
A wholesale boot and shoe house of Leavenworth, Kansas, had consigned to a customer, W. O. Worsfick, two cases of women's and children's shoes. Sometime during the night of November 7, 1895, the seal of the car in which these goods were shipped was broken and the boxes containing the shoes were broken into and several pairs of shoes taken therefrom. These shoes were afterward found in the possession of defendant and his confederate and identified as the shoes shipped by Messrs. Catlin & Knox to Worsfick.
While in jail at Platte City defendant and Wright attempted to break jail.
The defense was alibi and was supported principally by relatives of defendant.
August Crouse, an accomplice, made a confession and testified on behalf of the state.
The defendant was without the means to engage counsel and the court appointed Messrs. G. W. Broaddus and A. S. Beery to defend him, and we take pleasure in commending the zeal and ability which they displayed in performing the duty thus assigned them. The errors assigned will be examined in the order of their brief.
I. There was no such abuse of discretion in refusing the continuance asked by defendant as to constitute reversible error. The application failed in important particulars to comply with the requirements of the statute and it was not error to refuse to allow defendant to amend it and make a second effort. These applications must rest largely in the discretion of the trial courts who must of necessity be better able to judge of their merit than this court can be. It is only when it is obvious that this discretion has been abused that this court will review and correct the action of the circuit and criminal courts.
II. The circuit court properly refused to strike out the evidence of the accomplice Crouse or Krause. He had not been jointly indicted with defendant and he was therefore a competent witness as we have more than once directly ruled. State v. Umble, 115 Mo. 452, 22 S.W. 378; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95, 9 S.W. 646.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial