State v. Cantrell
| Citation | 234 S.W. 800,290 Mo. 232 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22929.,22929. |
| Parties | STATE v. CANTRELL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; E. M. Dearing, Judge.
Elmer Cantrell was convicted of robbery and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Jos. G. Williams and I. A. Rollins, both of St. Louis, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Albert Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Elmer Cantrell, and two negroes, Cecil Duboise and Archie Coleman, were jointly charged with robbery, in that they feloniously stole, took, and carried away from the person of C. A. Pressly, against his will, by violence to his person, and by putting him in fear of some immediate injury to his person, one gold watch of the value of $20 and $40 in lawful money, the property of said C. A. Pressly. A severance was granted, a trial was had, defendant was found guilty as charged, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years, from which conviction the defendant appealed.
The evidence for the state tended to prove that Pressly, who lived at Bismarck, went to De Soto, where he met the defendants, Cantrell, Coleman, and Duboise. After freely imbibing at all the saloons in the city, they went in the evening, over a bridge in the outskirts of the city where it was quite dark. There they each took one or more drinks out of Pressly's bottle of whisky. If there be any truth in the adage "in vino veritas" their testimony should be unimpeachable. While the drinking was going on, Cantrell suddenly cried out:
—or words to that effect. At the same time Cantrell caught Pressly, put his left arm around his neck, while with his right hand he took from Pressly's pockets his watch, knife, and about $40 in money. Pressly released himself, ran into town with appellant close upon his heels, and reported the robbery. The three were arrested that night; Coleman being found at his house. Coleman's sister gave the officer Pressly's watch. The money was not recovered. Coleman and Duboise testified for the state, corroborating Pressly's evidence, but denying any complicity in the affair. The defendant, Cantrell, testified in substance that Duboise drew a gun on Pressly, ordered him to throw up his hands and then grabbed him; that he (Cantrell) started away and walked across the bridge.
The information follows the language of the statute (section 3307, R. S., 1919), defining robbery in the first degree, and is sufficient.
There is no merit in the objection to the first instruction given for the state.
The second instruction authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree if they found from the evidence that Duboise or Coleman feloniously took the property of Pressly mentioned in evidence from his person against his will by force or violence to his person, or by putting him in fear and with no honest claim to said property, and with the intent to deprive Pressly of his ownership therein, and to convert the same to his or their use, "and if you shall further believe and find from the evidence that the defendant Cantrell was then and there willfully present, aiding and abetting and encouraging them so to do or either of them." The court refused the defendant's instruction No. 7 in the following language:
"The court instructs the jury that the mere presence of the defendant at the time that C. A. Pressly was robbed, if you believe and find that he was robbed, but did not aid, abet, assist or encourage ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
... ... Crone, 209 Mo. 328; State v. Hendricks, 172 Mo. 662; State v. McMullin, 170 Mo. 627; Secs. 3681, 3694, R.S. 1929; State v. Johnson, 6 S.W. (2d) 900; State v. Lambert, 300 S.W. 709, 318 Mo. 705; State v. London, 295 S.W. 549; State v. English, 274 S.W. 470, 308 Mo. 695; State v. Cantrell, 234 S.W. 802, 290 Mo. 232; State v. Starr, 148 S.W. 867, 244 Mo. 161; State v. Harris, 134 S.W. 536, 232 Mo. 317; State v. Lackey, 132 S.W. 602, 230 Mo. 707; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 155; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 304 ... ...
-
State v. Nasello
... ... Also the converse of instructions 6 and 10, as both direct a verdict. R.S. 1919, sec. 4025; State v. Major, 237 S.W. 486; State v. Jackson, 126 Mo. 521; State v. Rutherford, 152 Mo. 124; State v. Johnson, 234 S.W. 794; State v. Cantrell, 234 S.W. 800; State v. Shields, 246 S.W. 932; State v. Hayes, 247 S.W. 165; State v. Nanna, 18 S.W. (2d) 70. (10) The conduct of the prosecuting attorney was such as to prejudice the right of this defendant and this cause should be reversed on that account. From the opening statement of the ... ...
-
State v. Malone
... ... Evans, 124 Mo. 397; State v. Bartlett, 170 Mo. 658; State v. Matthews, 148 Mo. 185; State v. Moore, 29 S.W. (2d) 148. (b) Defendant is entitled to the converse of the State's instructions. State v. Hayes, 247 S.W. 168; State v. Gurner, 274 S.W. 60; State v. Hayes, 256 S.W. 748; State v. Cantrell, 290 Mo. 232. (5) The court erred in giving for the State Instruction 8. (a) By including phrase. "If you find the defendant did not seek the difficulty," without further defining what was meant by the phrase, it deprived the defendant of all self-defense, because the jury might find that by using ... ...
-
State v. Lowry
... ... 138; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 134; State v. McGeehee, 274 S.W. 70; McKeon v. Casualty Co., 270 S.W. 707. Instructions which are converse of instructions given by the State and which are offered by defendant must be given. State v. Majors, 237 S.W. 486; State v. Levitt, 278 Mo. 372; State v. Cantrell, 234 S.W. 800; State v. Johnson, 234 S.W. 794; State v. Jackson, 126 Mo. 521; State v. Dougherty, 228 S.W. 786. (10) Instruction 7 offered by defendant presented defendant's theory of the case and should have been given. Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. 12; State v. Hancock, 73 Mo. App. 19; State v ... ...