State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 12 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 28259 |
| Citation | 300 S.W. 504 |
| Parties | STATE v. BELL |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
H. K Bente and C. I. Bennington, both of Sedalia, and F. W Kirwin, of Kansas City, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and A. M. Meyer, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen for the ystate.
Charged with robbery in the first degree by a verified information filed, on March 16, 1926, in the circuit court of Jackson county, defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, From the judgment entered on the verdict, he duly appealed.
The evidence developed upon the part of the state warrants the finding that R. A. Carson, residing at 5618 Independence avenue, Kansas City, labor foreman of the Torson Construction Company, at that time engaged in building the 'Gooseneck sewer,' was proceeding, about 9:30 p. m. on February 13, 1926, along the Terminal viaduct on the Independence road in Kansas City, on his way from a barber shop to his home, when a man cut in ahead of him, Carson exclaiming in a friendly way, 'Where are you going there, hello!' upon which the man said, 'Stick 'em up!' Carson wheeled to run, but was caught by the tail of his coat, jerked back, the man pressing a gun to his ribs and saying that he would blow his guts out if he moved. The man than ran his hand in Carson's left front pocket, appropriating $ 51 found there, telling him to beat it. Carson said he then turned around and took a squint at the man. Carson attempted to argue the question with him, but was told to beat it, to get out of there or he would be shot, the man cussing him in the meanwhile. Carson said the man he referred to was Ora Bell, known to him as Leo Bell. The man had a handkerchief over his face from the nose down. There was a row of electric lights running along the center of the viaduct. The man had on a gray Hat, a gabardine overcoat, and a dark suit. The gun he had was dark, with a barrel four or five inches long.
Carson had known the defendant for about three months previously as Leo Bell. Defendant had worked under Carson's direction as a laborer for the Torson Construction Company, and it was Carson's duty to check out the laborers each night, and in doing so he called the number assigned to each, each laborer answering, Carson recognizing and identifying the voice of each one without looking up. In this way, he stated, he could recognize and identify each laborer by the sound of his voice. Defendant had been discharged a few weeks before the robbery. Carson said he had heard defendant's voice frequently, and was familiar with it. He recognized and identified defendant by his voice, shape, size, bulk, and looks, although he had a white handkerchief covering the lower part of his face. He stated that he did not get a good look at his face. On cross-examination, Carson said that in reporting the robbery to the officers he told them that he thought the man was defendant, and was not sure at that time, but after his arrest, on hearing his voice again at the police station, he became sure of it.
I. Contending that identification by voice was insufficient defendant charges error on the part of the trial court in refusing to peremptorily direct a verdict of acquittal. The record develops, we think, positive testimony on the part of the prosecuting witness that he recognized and identified defendant as the road agent by his voice. This testimony was ample to make it a submissible case, as the authorities generally hold. 8 R. C. L. p. 184, § 176. Hearing is one one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial