Sate v. Tracy
Citation | 294 Mo. 372,243 S.W. 173 |
Decision Date | 08 June 1922 |
Docket Number | No. 23366.,23366. |
Parties | SATE v. TRACY. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
Joe Tracy was convicted of burglary and larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and J. Henry Caruthers, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges that the defendant Joe Tracy, and Charles Murphy, on January 20, 1920, broke into a certain building, the bonded warehouse of the Blue Valley Distillery Company, a corporation, located between Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth streets, on Holden avenue, Kansas City, Mo., and stole 17 barrels of whisky of the value of $8,500 of the goods and property of the Blue Valley Distillery Company, against the peace and dignity of the state.
The defendant was arraigned on April 15, 1920, pleaded not guilty, and entered into a recognizance in the sum of $5,000. On May 29, the defendant was granted a severance, and the trial was set for June 14. On June 2, the defendant applied for a continuance, which was overruled, and the cause set for trial on June 21, on which day the trial was again set for July 12. When the case was called for trial on July 12, the defendant forfeited his recognizance, and scire facial was issued, returnable on the first day of the next term of court, being September 6, 1920. On. December 13, the defendant again applied for a continuance, on account of the absence of witnesses, which was overruled, and the case went to trial before a jury on the following day, resulting in a verdict of guilty of burglary and larceny, for which the punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary for the burglary and an additional two years for larceny: Motions for new trial and in arrest were filed and overruled. The defendant was thereupon sentenced in accordance with the verdict, and an appeal granted; the defendant being allowed to prosecute his appeal as a poor person.
The testimony for the state is thus summarized in the statement of the learned Attorney General:
The appellant has not favored us with a brief, but we have carefully examined the record in connection with the errors assigned in his motion for new trial.
1. The first complaint is the overruling of his application for continuance on the ground of the absence of two witnesses, Brennon and Poole, by whom he claimed he could establish his plea of alibi. The indictment was returned April 13, 1920; the defendant was arraigned April 15. The record shows that he applied for a continuance on June 2, 1920, which application was overruled. He forfeited his recognizance on July 12, 1920. The case came on for trial on December 13, 1920, when he made his second application for a continuance. The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant put four witnesses on the stand to establish his defense of alibi., The application discloses that the testimony of the absent witnesses would have been of the same character as that of the witnesses the defendant produced on that issue; it was simply cumulative. The case had been pending in court for more than eight months. It is alleged the witnesses had been absent from the city for several months, engaged in the racing business. It is not shown when the witnesses left the city, or whether the defendant knew of their intention to leave in time to serve them with subpoenas or to take their depositions. He had secured a continuance by forfeiting his recognizance. The granting of a continuance is largely in the discretion of the trial court. The defendant was not prejudiced by the refusal of the continuance. The application was properly overruled. State v. Williams, 170 Mo. 204, 70 S. W. 476; State v. Cain, 247 Mo. 700, 153 S. W. 1039; State v. Salts, 263 Mo. 304, 314, 172 S. W. 373.
2. It is claimed that the court erred in permitting the witness McNutt to testify to the identity of the barrels of whisky by comparing the marks, brands, and numbers thereon with the original record kept by the government at the distillery and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Denison
... ... Taylor, 261 Mo. 210, 227(IV), 168 S.W. 1191, 1196; State v. Long, 324 Mo. 205, 213(IX), 22 S.W. (2d) 809, 813 ... 6. State v. Tracy, 294 Mo. 372, 387, 243 S.W. 173, 177; State v ... ...
-
State v. Gadwood
... ... State v. Messino, 30 S.W. (2d) 759; State v. Eggleston, 27 S.W. (2d) 729; State v. Cockriel, 285 S.W. 440; State v. Tracy, 294 Mo. 372. (b) The evidence of the absent witness contained in the affidavit was merely cumulative and not material. State v. Naylor, 40 S.W. (2d) ... ...
-
Hartman v. Hartman
... ... be a comment on the evidence; it is an inference of fact, not ... of law. [State v. Swarens, 294 Mo. 139, 241 S.W ... 934; State v. Tracy, 294 Mo. 372, 387, 243 S.W ... 173.] The issue of testamentary capacity was, on the ... evidence, a question for the jury. [Knapp v. St. Louis ... ...
-
State v. Howard
... ... State v. Van Valkenburgh, ... 285 S.W. 978; State v. Williams, 263 S.W. 198; ... State v. Martin, 317 Mo. 313; State v ... Tracy, 294 Mo. 372; State v. Alred, 115 Mo ... 473; State v. Thompson, 141 Mo. 415; State v ... Blitz, 171 Mo. 537; State v. Murphy, 6 S.W.2d ... 877; ... ...