State v. Brooks, 37740.

• Decision Date: 13 March 1942
• Docket Number: No. 37740.,37740.
• Parties: STATE v. BROOKS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

159 S.W.2d 646

STATE v. BROOKS.

No. 37740.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 13, 1942.

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Division No. 3; Peter T. Barrett, Judge.

Frank Brooks was convicted of a first-degree robbery, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Edwin Rader, of Clayton, for appellant.

Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and W. J. Burke, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TIPTON, Presiding Judge.

The appellant was convicted of robbery in the first degree in the circuit court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and his punishment was assessed at five years in the state penitentiary.

The appellant's first assignment of error in his brief is that his demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained because he was not identified by any substantial evidence as being the person who committed the robbery.

Appellant offered no evidence. The evidence on behalf of the state is briefly as follows: Betty Kirkpatrick was employed by John Isaac, Jr., and lived at his residence, located at 7057 Westmoreland, University City, Missouri. October 8, 1939, which was her afternoon off, she had been visiting a friend who lived on Lackland Road. She left the home of her friend about eleven p. m. and took a street car to Kingsland and Delmar; from there she walked to Westmoreland. While on that street, she heard someone following her, wearing leather heels; she increased her pace and later started to run. Just as she began to run, someone grabbed her from behind and put his hand over her mouth so she could not scream. This happened alongside a shrubbery fence. They scuffled for some time and then both fell to the ground, which was muddy. The man finally arose, grabbed her handbag and ran. She ran after him and, as he crossed the street, the light played upon his profile. However, she testified that she never did get a good look at his face.

She made a report to the police department, stating that the man who assaulted her was about five feet eight or nine inches tall, of medium build, weighed about one hundred fifty pounds, had light hair and very light skin. She also stated he had on a dark suit, white shirt, a dark tie and black shoes. She testified that the bag contained two dimes, a nickel, some mills and an English half-penny and that one of the mills was bent. About fifteen or twenty minutes after the police were notified, they arrested the appellant and took him to the place where Betty Kirkpatrick lived. He answered the description previously given to the police. She noticed that mud was on both heels of his shoes and on his clothes.

When the appellant was searched by police, they found on him, two nickels, two dimes, one English half-penny, several mills, one of which was bent as described by the complaining witness. She positively identified the English coin and the bent mill and made a partial identification as to the rest of the coins found upon the appellant. At the trial she positively identified the appellant as the person who robbed her.

The mere fact that she did not get a good look at his face did not prevent her being able to identify the man from his profile as to the size, complexion, and the clothes he was wearing. Also, the fact that he had on his person the exact amount of money she had in her purse, and the fact that...