State v. Clump
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 385 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. CLUMP, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A party who has been jointly indicted with the defendant, but in whose case a nolle prosequi had been entered, is a competent witness against him.
2. The Supreme Court will not reverse either a criminal or civil case for the refusal of the court below to instruct the jury that evidence of verbal confessions is to be received with great caution.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
F. Spies, for appellant.
I. The State could not introduce the statements of co-defendant, Schrœder, not under oath, as those of an accomplice, and afterwards make a witness of said co-defendant.
II. In larceny there must be a taking, and although the taking may be presumed from the possession, yet no possession was proved against the defendant Clump.
III. Although possession may be constructive, yet a constructive possession upon a presumed taking cannot amount to
more than a presumptive larceny, a thing not recognized in law, because all doubts must be in defendant's favor.
IV. The verbal extrajudicial confessions of a defendant of his guilt should be received with great caution, and the court erred in refusing such an instruction asked for by the defendant to the jury. 1 Greenl. Ev. sec. 200, p. 241; id. sec. 214, p. 256.
J. R. Lackland, circuit attorney, for State.
The first error complained of is that the court permitted the state to enter a nol. pros. as to Schrœder, and introduce him as a witness against the defendant. It is deemed useless to refer this court to authority to show the action of the court in this behalf correct. The evidence in this cause supports the verdict. The jury thought it sufficient to exclude any rational doubt, and this court will not distur b the verdict. We perceive no errors in the instructions given. The first and second instructions cannot be questioned. The third instruction given is good. The three instructions refused were properly refused; they were all bad.
The defendant was indicted for grand larceny (hog stealing), by the grand jury of St. Louis county--was tried and convicted. He moved for a new trial. The motion was overruled, and he appealed to this court. The bill of exceptions preserved the evidence and the instructions given on the trial. In the opinion of this court the instructions given properly put the case before the jury.
1. The admission of the witness, Schrœder, who was jointly indicted with the defendant, but in whose case a nolle prosequi had been entered by the state, was not improper. The instructions given are, first: “If the jury believe from the evidence in the cause that the defendant, in St. Louis county, and within three years before the finding of this indictment, did steal, take, and carry away any one or more of the hogs charged in the indictment, and the property of Hermann Steins, of any value whatever, and that he did so steal, for the purpose of converting the same to his own use, you will find him guilty of grand larceny, and assess the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than two, nor more than five, years.
If you entertain a reasonable doubt as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Starr
...the court's refusal to give the instructions prayed for by defendant, and if that was the only error we might pass over it." And in State v. Clump, 16 Mo. 385, wherein the trial refused to instruct that the evidence of verbal confessions should be received with caution, it is said: "This co......
-
Clay v. State
... ... the burden of showing that such confessions were involuntary ... rests upon accused. ( Rufer v. State, 25 Ohio St ... A ... refusal to instruct that evidence of confessions are to be ... received with caution is not ground for reversal. ( State ... v. Clump, 16 Mo. 385; State v. Hardee, 83 N ... C., 619.) In the present case there was absolutely no ... inducement offered by promise or threat. The defendant was ... not obliged to answer Burney's accusation if he did not ... choose to. The case is clearly within the rule of ... admissibility ... ...
-
State v. Walker
... ... (1) ... Witnesses Graves and Newton were jointly indicted with ... defendant for the same offense and were therefore ... incompetent. 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 363-379; State v ... Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; State v. Clump, 16 Mo ... 385; State v. Chyo Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395; State v ... Looney, 82 Mo. 82; State v. Roberts, 15 Mo. 29; ... State v. Hunt, 91 Mo. 491. (2) The court erred in ... permitting the state to show that the defendant, William ... Walker, was a member of the organization known as Bald ... ...
-
State v. Clark
...testimony. The refusal of instructions similar to appellant's requested instruction have been held not to constitute error. State v. Clump, 16 Mo. 385, 387; State v. Williamson, 343 Mo. 732, 123 S.W. 42, 45; State v. Pope, 338 Mo. 919, 92 S.W.2d 904, 911. And see State v. Henderson, 186 Mo.......