State v. Balch
| Decision Date | 20 November 1896 |
| Parties | The State v. Balch, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. -- Hon. Henry L. Edmunds Judge.
Affirmed.
T. P Bashaw for appellant.
R. F Walker, attorney general, and C. O. Bishop for the state.
(1) There is no error apparent in the record proper. The indictment is sufficient in all respects and follows approved precedents. (2) The point made on the opening of the case against the reception of any testimony is not preserved in the motion for new trial, nor is there anything apparent of record to sustain it. (3) The demurrer to the state's evidence was properly overruled; moreover, the point is not preserved in the motion for a new trial. (4) The record shows that no testimony offered on the part of the appellant was excluded by the court. (5) Objections were interposed in a number of instances to testimony on part of the state, and exceptions saved where overruled and in none of these instances is there any suggestion as to the ground of objection. It has been the inflexible rule of this court since the case of State v. Hope, 100 Mo. 347, that it is necessary in criminal cases as well as in civil for a party objecting to evidence to state opportunely the reason for the objection in order to preserve the ruling for review should it be adverse. (6) It was clearly competent to show that defendant at the time of his arrest had in his possession the weapons usually carried by a police officer, he having claimed to be such at the time of the alleged robbery; also that he had in his possession the property of the prosecuting witness, alleged to have been stolen, as well as other property which had been recently taken by theft or robbery at or near the same time. State v. Moore, 101 Mo. 316. And it is competent to introduce evidence of another offense where it and the one under review are apparently part of a system of criminal operations, and for the purpose of showing the intent with which the charged act was done. State v. Tabor, 95 Mo. 585; State v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558. Especially in view of the very peculiar defense set up in this case and the declaration made by appellant at the time of his arrest that the other watch was his own property. (7) The instructions were correct in all particulars and fully covered the law of the case.
Robbery in the first degree is the charge in the indictment on which defendant was tried, the trial resulting in a conviction and sentence to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of five years.
Upon the impaneling of the jury defendant objected ore tenus to the introduction of any testimony under the indictment, his counsel stating to the court: The objection was overruled and exception.
The testimony on the part of the state tended to show the following: On the evening of June 11, 1894, in Forest Park, in the city of St. Louis, one Thomas Carey, in company with a young lady of his acquaintance, was taking a walk; they had alighted from one of the Lindell railway (electric) cars, and had walked some little distance when they sat down on the grass. Defendant came up to them and drawing out a revolver from his hip pocket, said: "You are under arrest for loitering in the park; you will have to pay ten dollars or go to the station." He stated that his name was Fletcher, and that he was a police officer. Carey replied that he had no money, but he would go to the police station and leave his watch there as security. Defendant said, "No, that won't do; you must give me the watch and I will send it back to you." He had the revolver in his hand all the time, and "stuck it right up" to Carey, and because of this fact Carey surrendered his watch to defendant, who took it and went off.
On the night of June 14 (three days after the above occurrence), a police officer making his rounds in the park saw defendant with a man and woman, from whom he separated and went into a clump of cedars; on complaint of the man and woman the officer pursued defendant, arrested him and brought him to the park police station; there he gave his name as Charles Effenkamp (but was recognized by an officer there as Balch), and on searching him was found the watch of Carey (taken on the night of the eleventh), a revolver, a policeman's "billy" and another watch belonging to the man who was with the woman when the officer saw them.
Defendant offered a demurrer to the evidence at the close of the state's case, which was overruled.
The testimony on the part of defendant tended to show that he was a man of previous good character, and a contractor for laying granitoid pavements,...
To continue reading
Request your trial