State v. Blocker

• Citation: 231 S.W. 1062
• Decision Date: 03 May 1921
• Docket Number: No. 16596.,16596.
• Parties: STATE v. BLOCKER.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

231 S.W. 1062

STATE v. BLOCKER.

No. 16596.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 3, 1921.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Davis, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Earl F. Blocker was convicted of receiving stolen property, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Arthur E. Simpson, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Lawrence McDaniel, of St. Louis, for the State.

BIGGS, C.

In an information filed by the circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis, defendant and another were jointly charged with burglary in the second degree, larceny, and receiving stolen property. Upon a trial before a jury, the defendant was adjudged guilty of receiving stolen property of less than $30 in value, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the city jail for a period of one year. Prom this conviction defendant appeals, contending that the court committed error in giving to the jury the following instruction:

"Fourth. By the term `knowing' that the property was stolen is not meant absolute personal and certain knowledge on the part of the defendants that the property mentioned in the information bad been stolen, but such knowledge and information in their possession at the time they received the same, if you believe they did receive it, as would put a reasonably prudent man, exercising ordinary caution, on his guard, and would cause such a man exercising such caution and under circumstances which you believe defendants received the property, to believe and be satisfied that the property had been stolen.

"The mere naked fact of the possession of said property by the defendants raises no presumption that the defendants knew that said property had been stolen by another."

The giving of this identical instruction has been several times condemned by the Supreme Court and held to be reversible error. State v. Ebbeller, 222 S. W. 396 (not yet officially reported); State v. Cavanagh, 225 S. W. 678 (not yet officially reported); State v. Fleischmann, 228 S. W. 461 (not yet officially reported).

The reasons assigned for holding the instruction erroneous are fully set forth by the Supreme Court in the Ebbeller Case, and it will be unnecessary to do more than to refer to that decision. The instruction plainly permits mere negligence to take the place of guilty knowledge in determining the criminal liability of the defendant.

It follows that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of BIGGS, C., is...