State v. Waller
Decision Date | 19 May 1903 |
Citation | 74 S.W. 842,174 Mo. 518 |
Parties | STATE v. WALLER. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; John W. Wofford, Judge.
Edward B. Waller was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Reversed.
Phil D. Clear and J. S. Brooks, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Sam B. Jeffries, and Jerry M. Jeffries, for the State.
At the April term, 1902, of the criminal court of Jackson county, defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and his punishment fixed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, under an information theretofore presented against him by the prosecuting attorney of said county, charging him with stealing a lot of surgical instruments from one Nelson A. Drake, of the aggregate value of $200. In due time defendant filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled, and he appeals.
Upon the trial defendant took the witness stand, and testified that he stole the articles and sold them to another person, but also testified that they were less than $30 in value. The evidence, however, showed very conclusively that they were worth more than that sum. Defendant also admitted while testifying that at the April term, 1899, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, under an indictment for grand larceny, he was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. He also admitted committing other larcenies.
The court instructed the jury as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rader
...502; Moore v. State, 166 S.W. (Tex. Cr. App.) 1153; 8 Ency. Ev. 122; State v. Zehnder, 228 Mo. 327; State v. Littrell, 170 Mo. 13; State v. Waller, 174 Mo. 518. (b) For the reason that there was no evidence sufficient to justify the giving of an instruction on the subject of grand larceny. ......
-
State v. Rader
...same to his own use without the consent of the owner, and therefore we think it falls short of the instruction in the Waller Case [174 Mo. 518, 74 S. W. 842]." To the same effect, in substance, are the holdings in the cases of State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463; State v. Shermer, 55 Mo. 83; State v.......
-
The State v. Barker
...... "that the larceny was committed with the felonious. intent to convert it to the taker's own use without the. consent of the owner." State v. Gochenour, 225. S.W. 690; State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 464; State v. Rutherford, 152 Mo. 131; State v. Waller, 174. Mo. 518; State v. Littrell, 170 Mo. 13; State v. Zehnder, 228 Mo. 327; State v. Swearengin, 234. Mo. 554. (2) The court should have admitted the deposition of. Clyde Callentine in evidence, especially that part in which. he testified that Rachael told him at Springfield that he. "had ......
-
State v. Weinhardt
...of the property. State v. Court, 225 Mo. 609, 614, 125 S. W. 451; State v. Anderson, 186 Mo. 25, 35, 84 S. W. 946; State v. Waller, 174 Mo. 518, 523, 74 S. W. 842; State v. Storts, 138 Mo. 127, 137, 39 S. W. 483. This rule is so universal that the employment of further space in the citation......