State v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 07 October 1912
• Citation: 166 Mo. App. 689,149 S.W. 1173
• Parties: STATE v. CAMPBELL
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

149 S.W. 1173

166 Mo. App. 689

STATE v. CAMPBELL

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

October 7, 1912.

1. WITNESSES (§ 345)—IMPEACHMENT—CONVICTION OF CRIME.

Under Rev. St. 1909, § 6383, providing that a witness' conviction of crime may be proved to affect his credibility, it was error, in a trial for a violation of the local option law, to exclude questions asked of a witness for the state as to whether he plead guilty of being drunk, and of passing whisky into the jail, and whether he was convicted of disturbing the peace.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 865) — ADMONISHING JURY.

In a trial for a violation of the local option law, it was error for the court, after the jury had been allowed to separate for the night, and before again sending them to the jury room in the morning for further deliberation, to address them on their duty and state that, unless juries agree or honestly attempt to agree, the criminal law is not administered.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; D. H. Harris, Judge.

George Campbell was convicted of violating the local option law, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

L. T. Searcy and Harris & Finley, all of Columbia, for appellant. E. C. Anderson, Pros. Atty., and W. H. Sapp, both of Columbia, for the State.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The defendant was tried and convicted on a charge of violating the local option law in force in Boone county. The information contained three counts. The defendant was convicted on the third count. From the judgment of the court defendant appealed.

On the trial the state introduced a negro man named Houston, who testified that John Lawson gave him 75 cents with which to buy whisky, and that he went to defendant's place of business and bought from him a pint of whisky for which he paid 75 cents. There is some evidence of a circumstantial nature tending to corroborate the evidence of Houston. On cross-examination Houston was questioned for the purpose of being impeached. He was questioned as follows: "I will ask you if on February 14, 1910, you didn't plead guilty to being drunk in Judge Stockton's justice court?" "On February 28, 1910, didn't you plead guilty before Justice Stockton to passing whisky into the jail?" "I will ask you if you were not convicted of disturbing the peace of Amanda Campbell the same month?" To each of these questions the state objected as to its competency. The court sustained the objections.

The jury failed to agree on the day the cause was submitted to them, and they were permitted, with the consent of parties, to separate until the following day. When the jury were called in the afternoon of Tuesday, the judge, before he sent them to the room to consider further the case, addressed them as follows : "Gentlemen of the jury, before sending you to your room at this time to...