State v. Athans
| Decision Date | 12 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57200,No. 1,57200,1 |
| Citation | 490 S.W.2d 25 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James ATHANS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard S. Paden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Arthur M. O'Keefe, Moberly, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal, filed prior to January 1, 1972, from judgment and sentence of one-year imprisonment and $500 fine, entered upon jury verdict of guilt on charge of uttering and delivering an insufficient funds check. Section 561.460, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The only question raised on this appeal is whether or not venue was properly in Randolph County.
James Athans, doing business from an office in Kansas City, Missouri, under the name of A. J. Joyce Company, employed W. L. Wisdom of Moberly, Randolph County, Missouri, to install restaurant fixtures in a restaurant A. J. Joyce Company was constructing in Moberly. Wisdom completed the work in July, 1969 and submitted his bill to Athans for $2,596.49. On September 23, 1969, Athans prepared a check for that amount, payable to Wisdom, drawn on the Merchants-Produce Bank of Kansas City. Because his account did not then have a balance in that amount, Athans held the check until sometime in October, when, according to Athans, he had arrived at an agreement whereby the bank would advance him credit in the amount of $10,000. Athans placed the check in the mail in Kansas City, addressed to Wisdom in Moberly. Wisdom received the check on October 29, 1969 and deposited it on that date in the City Bank & Trust Company of Moberly. The check was returned to Wisdom by that bank because it had not been honored. At no time in either September or October, 1969 did Athans have a balance in the Merchants-Produce Bank account sufficient to cover the check to Wisdom.
Section 541.033, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., provides:
'Persons accused of committing offenses against the laws of this state, except as may be otherwise provided by law, shall be prosecuted:
'(1) In the county in which the offense is committed; or
'(2) If the offense is committed partly in one county and partly in another, or if the elements of the crime occur in more than one county, then in any of the counties where any element of the offense occurred.'
Subparagraph (2) of this section is comparatively new, having been enacted in 1965. Laws of Mo., 1965, p. 661. It has not previously been applied by the courts of this state in a case such as this. However, in other jurisdictions, under similar, but not identical, venue statutes, the courts have held that when an insufficient funds check is drawn in one county and then by the maker placed in the mail, through which it is delivered to the payee in another county, venue for the offense of issuing the check with insufficient funds lies in either of such counties. Ex parte Myers, 119 Kan. 270, 237 P. 1026 (overruled on another issue in State v. Breitenbach, 190 Kan. 189, 373 P.2d 601, 603--604); State v. Beam, 175 Kan. 814, 267 P.2d 509, 511(1); People v. Parker, 51 Misc.2d 843, 274 N.Y.S.2d 38, 41(5, 6); People v. Megladdery, 40 Cal.App.2d 643, 105 P.2d 385, 390(9).
The courts in Ex parte Myers and in State v. Parker, supra, concluded that delivery of the check, charged as an element of the offense in this case, occurred in the county where the instrument was delivered through the mail to the payee. A different result was reached in People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Crunk
...Elec. Co. v. Collector of Revenue of St. Francois County, 562 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1978).2 Compare, however, the holding in State v. Athans, 490 S.W.2d 25 (Mo.1973), which by implication at least would suggest that the contractual law noted is not ipso facto applicable in all instances, whe......