State v. Baker

Decision Date31 May 1898
PartiesSTATE v. BAKER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

In a prosecution for robbing a cemetery, with intent to sell or dissect or use the body for surgical and anatomical experiment and preparation, a single witness testified that, late one dark night, he saw some unknown person working in a cemetery near defendant's brick yard, and next day, on observing clay on defendant's shoulder, remarked that he must have been riding the night before, and defendant then told him that he was out, and "got a stiff," and buried it in his brickyard, and remarked later that he could get $20 or $40 for "him." Defendant denied this evidence. He was a man of good character, and corroborated. The only other evidence was that the grave of Mrs. W. had been robbed, and that a waist, with buttons similar to those which she wore, was found in defendant's brickyard about a year afterwards. The brickyard was as accessible to others as to defendant, and there was no evidence to show that he obtained it for the purpose of selling or dissecting it, or for surgical or anatomical experiments. Held, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction.

Appeal from circuit court, Putnam county; Andrew Ellison, Judge.

Ira Baker was convicted of robbing a cemetery, and he appeals. Reversed.

Marshall & Franklin Bros., for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

This is a prosecution originating in Putnam county, Mo. The indictment, omitting formal parts, contained three counts, as follows: First count: "That one Ira Baker on the ____ day of April, A. D. 1895, at the said county of Putnam, state of Missouri, did then and there, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously, dig up, disinter, and remove the dead body and the remains of a human being, to wit, the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson, deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred, and then and there was, for the purpose of selling the dead body and remains, against the peace and dignity of the state." Second count: "That one Ira Baker on the ____ day of April, 1895, at the county of Putnam, state of Missouri, did then and there, willfully and feloniously, dig up, disinter, and remove the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson, deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred, and then and there was, for the purpose of dissecting the said body and remains, against," etc. Third count: "That one Ira Baker on the ____ day of April, 1895, at the county of Putnam, state of Missouri, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, dig up, disinter, and remove the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson, deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred, and then and there was, for the purpose of surgical and anatomical experiment and preparation of the said body and remains, against," etc. At the September term of said court, 1897, the defendant was put on trial; and the jury brought in a general verdict, finding the defendant guilty, and assessing his punishment at a term of two years in the penitentiary. Defendant assigns three grounds of error for reversal.

The first and the substantial assignment is that the sentence should be reversed because there was a total failure of proof to show a violation of the criminal law, under either of the counts in the indictment. The burden of the evidence was that defendant lived at Lemon Station, in Putnam county, and was operating a brickyard some distance from his house; that one Dr. Chapman also lived in the same village; that he and defendant were quite good friends; that Chapman was much addicted to intoxication, and defendant often took him to his home; and that on one occasion the doctor had injured defendant by striking him in the side. Kennedy, the witness upon whom the state relies to sustain this conviction, was a half-brother of Dr. Chapman. Defendant had a claim against the estate of Chapman, and this aroused the resentment of Kennedy, and he preferred this charge. His story is this: That one night, a few days prior to the day he named for the commission of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • The State v. Meysenburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1902
    ... ... grotesque manner. (4) Where there is a total failure of ... proof, it is the duty of the trial court to take the case ... from the jury. Where it refuses to do so, the judgment will ... be reversed and the defendant discharged. State v ... Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; State v. Baker, 144 ... Mo. 330; State v. Shackelford, 148 Mo. 493; ... State v. Mahan, 138 Mo. 112; State v ... Young, 119 Mo. 526. (5) The indictment averred that ... under the agreement the sum of $ 9,000, lawful money of the ... United States, was paid to the defendant by Philip Stock. The ... ...
  • State v. McMurphy
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1930
    ... ... criminal prosecution, a corpus delicti must be ... proved before the State has a right to ask a conviction. Such ... corpus delicti consists not only of the objective ... crime itself, but also of the agency of the accused in it ... State v. Jones, 106 Mo. 302; State v ... Baker, 144 Mo. 323; State v. Crabtree, 170 Mo ... 642; State v. Morney, 196 Mo. 43; State v ... Francis, 199 Mo. 671; State v. Goddard, 216 Mo ... 172; State v. Miller, 234 Mo. 588; State v ... Bass, 251 Mo. 126; State v. Bowman, 294 Mo ... 245; State v. Goodson, 299 Mo. 321. (3) Absent proof ... ...
  • State v. Londe
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1939
    ... ... evidence upon which to support the conviction. State v ... Crabtree, 170 Mo. 642. (3) The verdict of the jury is ... against the law. It is necessary to prove the charge as laid ... State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 120; State v ... Chamberlin, 75 Mo. 382; State v. Baker, 144 Mo ... 323; State v. Warner, 74 Mo. 83; State v ... Schafer, 116 Mo. 107; State v. Crabtree, 170 ... Mo. 642. (4) The verdict of the jury is the result of bias ... and prejudice, and should be reversed. Where there is no ... evidence to support the verdict the inference is that ... ...
  • State v. Meysenburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1902
    ...effect, should have prevailed. State v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461, 65 S. W. 230; State v. Hagan, 164 Mo. 654, 65 S. W. 249; State v. Baker, 144 Mo. 330, 46 S. W. 194; State v. Shackelford, 148 Mo. 493, 50 S. W. 105; State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 39, 6. Nor is the conclusion just an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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