State v. Batterson
| Decision Date | 05 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 26049 |
| Citation | 274 S.W. 43 |
| Parties | STATE v. BATTERSON |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Thomas, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted of receiving three sacks of stolen sugar of the value of $ 30 or more, at Memphis, in Scotland county, on May 10, 1923, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. From the judgment entered on the verdict, he has appealed.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that the sugar in question was part of a shipment of ten 100-pound sacks of sugar by Shryack Grocery Company of Kirksville Missouri, to one A. B. Bradley. The sugar was billed to Memphis over the Wabash Railroad and the Burlington Railroad and was deposited in a car of another railroad. On arrival at Memphis the car was opened and certain goods removed. The ten sacks of sugar and other goods shipped to Bradley were still in said car on the afternoon of May 8, 1923, when the doors of the car were closed and sealed. The next morning the ten sacks of sugar were gone. One of the car seals gave evidence of having been tampered with.
It is unnecessary to state the evidence tending to identify the sugar charged to have been received by defendant as the same sugar shipped from Kirksville, billed to Bradley, and removed from the box car standing near the elevator in Memphis on the night of May 8th. There is ample evidence tending to establish such identity, and to show that it had been stolen before it was received by defendant on the night of May 10th. No evidence was offered by defendant on the question of the identity of the said sugar, or tending to show that the sugar received by him was not the same sugar, or that it had not been recently stolen. The only evidence upon the subject of value was that the sugar received by defendant was of the then market value of $ 10.60 per 100 pounds, or a total value of $ 31.80.
One Barneyback, a convict brought from the Missouri Penitentiary, testified that, on May 8, 1923, he stole ten sacks of sugar from a box car in Memphis. Some, if not all, of the sacks had Bradley's name on them. Barneyback sold three of the sacks of sugar to defendant on the night of May 10th. He told defendant before the sale that the sugar had been stolen. He was paid $ 8 per sack by defendant. The arrangement made was that he was to deliver the sugar to defendant at his house after dark. His automobile broke down, and he went to defendant's house and told him so. Thereupon defendant secured a truck and went with him after the sugar. It was in a field near Memphis.
Constable Sam Rader and other officers saw the defendant unloading said sugar at his house. Rader said the truck was driven in at the side of the house, and that the lights were turned out at the time, and that the engine was left running while the sugar was being unloaded. As we understand the evidence, the officers apparently suspected defendant of some sort of violation of the prohibition law, and they did not know of the larceny of the sugar at the time they were watching defendant's house. At any rate, Constable Rader spoke to defendant while he was unloading the sugar. Then defendant drove away with the truck, and other officers went for a search warrant, while Rader watched the premises. The house belonged to defendant's mother-in-law, Mrs. Givens. After the search warrant was procured, a search of the premises was made. The sugar was then in the house. Apparently sugar was not what they were looking for, because they left it there at the time.
The officers took defendant in custody, and took him first to the office of the justice of the peace and then to the prosecuting attorney's office, where he remained from about 10 o'clock at night until after 12:30 in the morning. That night defendant signed and afterwards swore to the following confession:
'Homer Barneyback owed me $ 30, and has for quite a long while. I asked him about paying it, and he said he didn't have any money, but he said him and some guys had some sugar. They were going to make hootch out of, and they got cold feet and give it up, and if I would take 300 pounds they would call it a square deal. It would be all right with him, and he was to deliver it down to the house and was to be there about 8 o'clock; and he came up and said he had broken the car down and wanted to know if I had a car and would go out and get it. I took Turner's truck and went out and got the sugar. Going out he told me the sugar was stolen. I asked him who was in with him. He said Glad McHenry and Willie Ransford. I told him he ought not to get mixed up with them. We went out past Frank Baker's place. I guess it is down on a kind of a little branch. They had the sugar down in a field on the left-hand side of the road. They put it on the truck, and I brought it into town. I saw marking 'A. B. Bradley' on the sacks, and they told me they got it out of a car down on the track. They had 500 pounds that I saw. At this place with the sugar were Glad McHenry and Willie Ransford and Homer Barneyback. I am making this statement of my own free will, without promise or request of clemency or anything.
'T. R. Batterson.
'Witnessed by J. K. Barrickman.
'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of May, A. D. 1923.
'Circuit Clerk.'
On the morning following, defendant told Deputy Sheriff Barrickman, who had also witnessed the signing of the statement the night before, that Barneyback had told him he had stolen the sugar. Defendant also told one W. H. Morgan, special agent of the Burlington Railroad, that he bought some of the sugar and knew it belonged to the Burlington.
Testifying in his own behalf, defendant said that Barneyback had become indebted to him in the sum of $ 31, and that Barneyback met him on May 10th and asked him if he 'would take some sugar and square the debt.' Defendant asked him where he got it, and he said 'a fellow got it to make some hootch and got cold feet.' Defendant agreed to take the sugar, and Barneyback was to deliver it at the house of defendant's mother-in-law at 8 o'clock that night. Defendant waited there until 8:30 p. m. before Barneyback came and told him that his car had broken down. Defendant then got Turner's truck and went after the sugar. The substance of defendant's testimony was quite similar to his written confession above set out, except that he denied knowledge that the sugar was stolen when he received it. He testified that Barneyback told him on the way out that the sugar was stolen and then defendant said he did not want to have anything to do with it. Thereupon Barneyback said, 'No; it wasn't, I was just kidding.'
Defendant testified that the prosecuting attorney told him he would not be prosecuted if he would make a confession, as he was after the thieves. Both the prosecuting attorney and the officers testified that no inducements, threats, or abuse were used in procuring the confession. One of the officers was Barrickman. The defendant's wife and mother-in-law testified to statements of Barrickman which tended to impeach his testimony that no promises were made to defendant. Defendant was not asked if he wanted to consult an attorney or told that what he said might be used against him. The state's evidence was that the prosecuting attorney told him he need not talk if he did not want to. Several witnesses testified that defendant bore a good reputation as a law-abiding citizen. While it appears from the record that defendant was represented by counsel below, no brief has been filed for him in this court.
I. The first, second, sixth, seventh, and fifteenth assignments of error in the motion for new trial attack the sufficiency of the evidence. No one can read the record and come to any other conclusion except that the state proved every element of the crime of receiving stolen property, knowing same to have been stolen, and presented a case entirely convincing in character. There is not the slightest doubt under the record made below that defendant received the very sugar stolen from the box car and described in the information. Ownership was laid in the Burlington Railroad, and such ownership, for the purposes of this prosecution was sufficiently proven. The only testimony upon value was that the sugar was worth $ 31.80. If the witnesses for the state had overstated the market value, we have no doubt able counsel would have offered testimony upon a subject so easily susceptible of proof.
The only question under the evidence is whether or not the defendant knew that the sugar was stolen when he bought and received it. The jury heard Barneyback's testimony that defendant already knew that fact. Defendant so stated in his confession. Independent of such testimony, there are other circumstances tending to show guilty knowledge. At first defendant said he got the sugar in Keokuk, thus apparently trying to conceal where he got it. He admitted going after night and getting the sugar at a place he must have known proclaimed its character as stolen property. He did not dispute that part of his confession which indicated that he knew the bad character of Barneyback's companions, who shared with him the possession of the stolen sugar. The state not only made out a sufficient case; it proved an overwhelming case against defendant.
II. The refusal of the court to sustain the motion to quash the information is assigned as error. No evidence was introduced upon matters therein requiring proof, or, if such proof was made, it has not been preserved in the bill of exceptions. The contention that no preliminary hearing was granted is refuted by the only evidence which appears to have been offered upon the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial