State v. Campbell

• Citation: 18 S.W. 1109,108 Mo. 611
• Parties: STATE v. CAMPBELL.
• Decision Date: 02 March 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

18 S.W. 1109

108 Mo. 611

STATE v. CAMPBELL.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 2, 1892.

LARCENY — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — FELONIOUS INTENT — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. Evidence that defendant, claiming to have purchased a stray cow that had been taken up and advertised by a neighbor, drove the same into her lot, and the testimony of the alleged seller that he had made no such sale, are sufficient to support a verdict finding her guilty of grand larceny.

2. An instruction that defendant was guilty of grand larceny if she "stole, took, and carried away" a cow, and that unless she did so she was not guilty, was, standing alone, erroneous, in that it was too abstract, and failed to state, except by implication, that the taking should have been wrongful or with felonious intent.

Appeal from circuit court, Barry county; JOSEPH CRAVENS, Judge.

Anna A. Campbell was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Reversed.

W. Cloud and F. D. Steele, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

MACFARLANE, J.

Defendant was jointly indicted with one E. V. Watson for the larceny of a cow, the property of Valentine Rodgers. She was granted a severance, and upon a trial was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years, and from the judgment she appealed to this court.

1. Defendant insists, in the first place, that the verdict and sentence were not authorized under the evidence. To this proposition we cannot agree. The evidence shows that the cow strayed away from the owner in the spring of 1889. In November, 1889, she was taken up and advertised as a stray by Thomas Avis. The next day defendant, who lived within half a mile of Avis, drove the cow into her lot, and claimed to be the owner of her; told Avis and others that she had bought her from a man named Fisher. Only one man of the name of Fisher was introduced as a witness. He testified that he knew no other man by the name in the county, and he himself had not sold plaintiff the cow. The evidence tended to prove that the cow was in the neighborhood during the summer, and was known to defendant as a stray. The proof of the assertion was unquestioned. There was also evidence tending to prove that defendant had the cow in her exclusive possession prior to taking her from Avis. From this brief outline of the facts, it will readily be seen that the evidence tended to prove every substantive fact necessary to make the crime of grand larceny, and was sufficient to justify the verdict of guilty.

2. The court instructed the jury, in substance, that if they should believe from...