State v. Bateman

• Decision Date: 22 May 1906
• Citation: 196 Mo. 35,95 S.W. 413
• Parties: STATE v. BATEMAN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

95 S.W. 413

196 Mo. 35

STATE v. BATEMAN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 22, 1906.

1. ROBBERY—ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO ROB —INSTRUCTIONS.

Where, on a trial for assault with intent to rob, the court defined robbery as the felonious taking of the property of another from his person, whether by violence or by putting him in fear, with intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof, an instruction authorizing a verdict of guilty on finding that accused assaulted the prosecutor with intent to rob was not erroneous for failing to charge that it was necessary that accused, at the time he made the assault, did so with the intent to deprive the prosecutor of his property.

2. CRIMINAL LAW—INSTRUCTIONS—ALIBI.

An instruction on the defense of alibi, that if accused was elsewhere than at the place of the commission of the crime charged he was not guilty, and if on a consideration of the evidence the jury have a reasonable doubt as to whether accused was elsewhere than at the place of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission, a verdict of not guilty should be rendered, was not erroneous, as casting the burden of proof on accused.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; James J. Gideon, Judge.

Ed. Bateman was convicted of an assault with intent to rob, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is here upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the Greene county circuit court for an assault with intent to rob one Charles R. Ingram. The offense of which the defendant was convicted, omitting formal parts, was thus charged in the information: "Roscoe C. Patterson, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Greene, in the state of Missouri, informs the court that Ed. Bateman on the 3d day of September, A. D. 1903, at the said county of Greene and state of Missouri, did then and there feloniously make an assault in and upon the body of one Charles Ingram, in the peace of the state then and there being, with the intent him, the said Charles Ingram, then and there, of certain money, goods, and valuable things on the person of the said Charles Ingram then and there being, from the person and in the presence of the said Charles Ingram, against the will of the said Charles Ingram, by force and violence to the person of the said Charles Ingram, and by putting the said Charles Ingram in fear of some immediate injury to his person, feloniously to rob, steal, take, and carry away, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." To this information defendant entered his plea of not guilty, and a trial of the cause was had.

The state's evidence tended to prove: That the prosecuting witness, Mr. Ingram, lived in Springfield, Mo., and was a reporter for one of the newspapers in that city. That on the night of September 3, 1903, Mr. Ingram went to the depot of the Gulf Railroad to meet the midnight train. As soon as the train arrived he purchased a Kansas City newspaper, turned, and started home. When a short distance from the locomotive and while near an electric light, he saw two negro men, one of whom grabbed him by the lapel of his coat and said, "Have you got any money?" Mr. Ingram replied that he had not, and the negro came up close to him and felt through his pockets. The other negro took no part in the assault, but was close by, and said, "Come on, and leave him alone; he is a newspaper man." As the light from the engine and from the electric light were bright, Mr. Ingram had no difficulty in recognizing defendant, and also in discovering that defendant was under the influence of liquor. In the scuffle between them Mr. Ingram was struck in the eye, and his straw hat was knocked off. A negro porter picked up Mr. Ingram's hat, and told him that one of the men who ran away was named Ralph Burns. As defendant retreated, he threw rocks at Mr. Ingram. The next day a complaint was filed by the prosecuting witness charging Ralph Burns with robbery. In a few days Burns was arrested by Police Officer Felis, taken before the prosecuting witness, who promptly said that he was the wrong man, and Burns was released. As soon as he was released Burns then told of the person who did make the assault, and defendant was accordingly arrested. Mr. Ingram visited the county jail, saw defendant, and recognized him as the guilty party, and was positive at the trial that defendant was the one who made the assault and felt in his pockets. Ralph Burns testified that he had been with defendant on the night of the assault, had taken a few drinks with him, and saw defendant make the assault on Mr. Ingram, and that both Burns and defendant ran away. On behalf of the defendant, the evidence tended to show that he did not make any assault on Mr. Ingram, but was at the home of his parents that night; defendant being only 20 years old. Defendant, his mother, and brother testified to this alibi.

At the close of the evidence the court fully instructed the jury upon every phase of the case to which the testimony was applicable. As the correctness of only three of the instructions is challenged, it will suffice to reproduce those to which...