State v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 22 November 1904
• Citation: 184 Mo. 266,83 S.W. 753
• Parties: STATE v. ALEXANDER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 S.W. 753

184 Mo. 266

STATE v. ALEXANDER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 22, 1904.

ROBBERY — EVIDENCE — ADMISSIBILITY — SUFFICIENCY — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. Evidence on a trial for robbery examined, and held sufficient to warrant a conviction.

2. The Supreme Court on appeal will not pass on the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of crime, except where there is an entire failure of proof.

3. An instruction on a trial for robbery that if the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant assaulted the prosecuting witness with intent to rob, and robbed him of property with intent to convert the same to his own use without the consent and against the will of the prosecuting witness, they should find defendant guilty, properly required the jury to find every essential fact necessary to constitute the offense charged.

4. On a prosecution for robbery, evidence of the efforts of defendant to induce the prosecuting witness not to appear and testify is admissible as tending to show guilt, though tending to prove the crime of bribery.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Nodaway County; A. D. Burns, Special Judge.

William Alexander was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Jesse F. Robertson and B. R. Martin, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

FOX, J.

This appeal is from a conviction of robbery in the first degree. "The defendant, William Alexander, was convicted at the November term, 1903, of the Nodaway circuit court, upon an information preferred by the prosecuting attorney of Nodaway county, charging him with robbery in the first degree, under section 1893, of the Revised Statutes of 1899 — the offense charged being that he, together with one Barnard, by violence, etc., took from the person of one Lafayette Marshall a pocketbook containing money, the property of said Marshall — and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of five years. Defendant and Barnard were jointly charged in the information aforesaid. The defendant asked a severance, which was duly allowed him by the court. At the time of his trial and conviction the defendant was twenty-six years of age. He resided with his father and mother in Burlington Junction, Missouri, and had lived there for several years prior to his arrest upon this charge. The offense whereof he was convicted is alleged to have been committed at the city of Burlington Junction, Nodaway county, Mo., Sunday, October 18, 1903. The robbery is alleged to have taken place in the afternoon of that day, at the Q Scales, in Burlington Junction. The defendant and prosecuting witness were acquaintances, both of them living in Burlington Junction. The witness Marshall was a laboring man, worked upon the section for the Burlington Railway Company. Marshall and defendant met, in company with other parties, at the depot in Burlington Junction, some time in the forenoon of the aforesaid Sunday. Marshall had just drawn his pay from the pay car, amounting to ten dollars and sixty cents. The defendant, Marshall, and three other men went together from the depot to the hotel where Marshall lived, and the defendant proposed to Marshall that they all get something to drink. Marshall gave the defendant a ten-dollar gold piece and told him to get a quart of whisky, which the defendant did, returning to Marshall nine dollars in change. Thereupon the defendant, Barnard (jointly charged with defendant), and Marshall repaired to the Q Scales, in Burlington Junction, Mo., where the three drank the quart of whisky so purchased by the defendant. According to the testimony of Marshall, he was sitting down on the scales aforesaid, and was somewhat under the influence of liquor. Barnard threw himself across Marshall's arms and held him while defendant went into his pocket and took therefrom his pocketbook, containing something near eight or eight and one-half dollars. After the alleged taking of the money aforesaid from Marshall, Barnard and defendant went uptown, and thence to their respective homes, while the witness Marshall went uptown, and then to his hotel. He told a butcher named Jones about the matters when he got up town, but did not make any complaint or tell any officer of the law or cause any warrant to be issued or arrest made until two days and nights thereafter. It appears that, at the time of the alleged robbery, Marshall was living at a hotel conducted by a man named Wallace, who, in addition to being the conductor of the aforesaid hostelry, was also a lawyer — at least, he had been admitted to the bar. To this man Wallace the witness Marshall told the story of having had his money taken from him by the defendant and Barnard, and Wallace advised Marshall to have them arrested, telling Marshall that he (Wallace) would take care of his case, prosecute the defendant and Barnard, and obtain his money for him. Marshall told Wallace that he had no money to pay his board while waiting for the trial, and Wallace told him he would `hold him up' until after the trial. Thereupon Marshall went with Wallace and swore out the complaint. The defendant and Barnard were arrested, and gave bond for their appearance at the November term, 1903, of the Nodaway circuit court."

After the arrest of the defendant the state introduced testimony showing that defendant and prosecuting witness went off together, the defendant paying the expenses on this trip. It was shown while they were on this trip the defendant registered at a hotel as J. A. King, Quincy, Ill. A part of the conversation between Marshall and the defendant was as follows: "Q. Did you have any talk with him coming down on the train? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, tell this jury just exactly what he told you? A. Well, he asked me, `Where in the devil are you going?' Says he, `Are you going back on me that way?' Says I, `I am going back.' Q. What did he say? A. He says: `You are a damned old fool. What are you going to do that for?' Q. Tell what else he said? A. We rode on a piece, and he says: `You are in it now.' Says I: `I can't help it. It's unbeknowings to me.' Q. Tell what he said? A. He says: `I don't want you to go to that court and tell them I tried to hire you to get out of the country or give you any money.' Q. Tell all that he said there? Q. Tell what he said in that connection? A. He says: `If you tell them you took money from me, or I gave you the money to get away on, I will kill you, you damned old fool.' There was a couple of men in there." Other testimony was introduced showing that defendant the next day after the alleged robbery had in possession money of the description of that claimed to have been lost by the prosecuting witness.

The defendant denies the charge, and his testimony is in direct conflict with that of Marshall, the prosecuting witness. The direct and cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, as well as the defendant, was quite...