State v. Corbin
| Decision Date | 02 April 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 39188.,39188. |
| Citation | 186 S.W.2d 469 |
| Parties | STATE v. CORBIN et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Louis H. Schult, Judge.
Joe Thomas Corbin and Lee Corbin were convicted of first degree robbery, and they appeal.
Affirmed as to defendant Joe Thomas Corbin, and reversed and remanded as to defendant Lee Corbin.
O. E. Hooker and Ward & Reeves, all of Caruthersville, for appellants.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Joe Thomas Corbin, Lee Corbin and Lester (Junior) Mitchell were jointly charged in the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County with robbery in the first degree. Their application for a change of venue was sustained, and the case transferred to the Circuit Court of New Madrid County, where they were convicted, and each sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary, in accordance with the verdict. Joe Thomas Corbin and Lee Corbin have appealed.
There are but two assignments namely: (1) That the court should have directed a verdict of not guilty as to Joe Thomas Corbin, as requested; and (2) Allegedly improper and prejudicial argument by the prosecutor. Proceeding first to an examination of the challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence as to the complaining defendant, we find the evidence justifies the following statement:
Defendants are white men. Joe Thomas Corbin (hereinafter referred to as Joe) and Lee Corbin are brothers. The prosecuting witness, Roosevelt Johnson, an illiterate negro farm hand, was employed by, and lived on the farm of Theodore Klinkhardt, located about three miles southwest of the town of Hayti, in Pemiscot County.
Roosevelt testified, in substance, as follows: That about midnight of the night of October 20, 1943, he was walking down the street in Hayti. He had had two flats on his car while undertaking to move his aunt to Arkansas, and so was anxious to find transportation to the Klinkhardt farm. As he was walking down the street he was talking aloud to himself and said, "If I knew someone that would carry me out to my boss man's I would get some money." Joe having overheard Roosevelt's conversation with himself inquired, "How far is it?" Being informed it was three or four miles, Joe replied, "I will carry you out there." This, according to Roosevelt, was to be for the agreed price of one dollar. The other defendants were present at the time. Inquiry developed that Roosevelt had no money, except a dime, which he turned over to Joe, at the latter's request, for the purpose of getting some beer. Having thus pooled their resources, Joe bought two bottles of beer for a quarter, one of which he drank and the other was consumed by Roosevelt. The prosecuting witness and the defendants then got in Joe's 1929 Ford coach and proceeded to the Klinkhardt farm. Arriving there about 12:30 A.M., Mr. Klinkhardt was gotten out of bed. He came out on the porch, and Roosevelt explained his dilemma. Roosevelt asked for six dollars, one of which, as he then stated, was to pay for the trip. One of the defendants, who had gotten out of the car and was standing nearby, said, "It is two dollars." Roosevelt remonstrated that their arrangement was for one dollar. When this occurred, he was directed by Mr. Klinkhardt to pay the men two dollars for the trip. He gave Roosevelt a total of seven dollars, i.e., two $1 bills, and one $5 bill. Roosevelt said he paid the two dollars to one of the defendants (not specifically identified) "there at the steps" at the Klinkhardt home. On the return trip to Hayti, Joe was driving and the prosecuting witness occupied the front seat with him. Lee and Mitchell were in the back seat. This was the same seating arrangement as on the trip out from town. They had proceeded up the road about a mile when, without warning, Lee struck Roosevelt on the head with a hammer. Joe stopped the car, and then Mitchell struck Roosevelt on the jaw with a wrench, and Lee Corbin took the five dollar bill which Roosevelt had in his watch pocket. Whereupon, Joe said, "Don't kill him because you have done got his money." Roosevelt then got out of the car, and it proceeded on. This was in the vicinity of the home of Walter Klinkhardt, Theodore Klinkhardt's son. Roosevelt "crawled" to Walter Klinkhardt's house, and reported what had happened. Walter Klinkhardt put Roosevelt in a truck, and took him to Hayti.
Arriving at Hayti, Roosevelt saw a state patrolman and "the night law" (the night Marshal) standing on the street, and reported the occurrence to them. He saw the Ford parked on the street near a saloon, and within five minutes thereafter the three defendants came out of the saloon, and went to it. At that time Roosevelt had a gash on one side of his head at the edge of his hair, and another not definitely described. Defendants were questioned by the officers. They denied knowing the negro, or having been with him, and continued to do so until they had gotten to the jail where, in the light, it was discovered that Lee was wearing Roosevelt's hat. Lee denied it was Roosevelt's hat, but Joe said, "Yes, that is his hat." Then all admitted they had taken Roosevelt out to the Klinkhardt farm, but insisted that Roosevelt's agreement was to pay them seven dollars for the trip. There were spots of blood on both hats. At the time they were taken into custody, which was about 1:30 A.M., defendants had been drinking, and were "under the influence of liquor." A wrench was found in Lee's back pocket. There was blood and negro hair on it. A hammer was found in the back seat of the car. There was blood on it. There was a bottle of apricot liquor "under the driver's part of the front seat of the car." The rear glass on the right side of the car was broken — "glass was strewn over the back seat of the car and some had fallen on the running board on the right side."
A pocketbook was taken from each defendant. Mitchell's was empty, but two "crumpled up" $1 bills were found in his side pocket. Joe's pocketbook contained one $5 bill, which was likewise in a crumpled condition. Lee's pocketbook contained one $1 "pressed out" bill.
Joe did not testify, but his co-defendants did. There were a good many discrepancies and self-contradictions in their testimony, as will appear from the substance thereof which is hereinafter set out. Their version of the affair was that an argument arose over the payment of the car hire. Lee testified that Roosevelt had paid Joe one dollar, and that he (Lee) asked Roosevelt "if he was going to pay the dollar he was supposed to pay," and that when Roosevelt replied in the negative, "he (Roosevelt) went to scrambling after we started arguing and he reached back over the back seat and I hit him [twice] with the car jack." He further testified that Roosevelt finally gave him a bill, which, when he got to town, was found to be a $5 bill; and that Roosevelt gave Mitchell two $1 bills. He denied using the wrench which was later found on his person, but was unable to account for the blood on it. He likewise denied using the hammer.
Mitchell denied that he participated in the fight in the car, but admitted the negro gave him a dollar, but insisted this was before the trouble arose. He stated the original agreement was for five dollars. He further testified that when the negro told Mr. Klinkhardt the price was one dollar, "Joe hollored `two dollars'"; that Roosevelt (at the farm) gave the witness "a dollar before we got to the car, and Joe a dollar after we got to the car, and was supposed to give him five dollars." He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arnold, 59894
... ... State v. Butler, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 952, 957." See also State v. Corbin, 186 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo.1945); State v. Nichelson, 546 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Burks, 521 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Jackson, 519 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Johnson, 510 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Mo.App.1974) ... The state's case was based on ... ...
-
State v. Rollie
... ... See State v. Stockdale, 415 S.W.2d 769 (Mo.1967); State v. Ramsey, 368 S.W.2d 413 (Mo.1963) ... An accused's participation in the offense may be inferred by his conduct before, during or after the commission of the offense, see State v. Corbin, 186 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.1945); State v. Jackson, 519 S.W.2d 551 (Mo.App.1975). Conviction will stand upon evidence, proving participation in the planning of the crime, see State v. Slade, 338 S.W.2d 802 (Mo.1960), State v. Hayes, 262 S.W. 1034 (Mo.1924); State v. Evans, 545 S.W.2d 694 (Mo.App.1976); ... ...
-
State v. Ramsey
... ... The only question remaining, so far as defendant is concerned, is whether the evidence permits a fair inference of his participation or of his aiding, abetting or encouraging the crime, for any of which he would properly be found guilty. State v. Corbin, Mo., 186 S.W.2d 469; State v. Kowertz, 317 Mo. 426, 297 S.W. 358; State v. Butler, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 952; State v. Whitaker, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 316; State v. Massey, 358 Mo. 1108, 219 S.W.2d 326; Mays v. United States (C.A. 8), 261 F.2d 662; State v. Bresse, 326 Mo. 885, 33 S.W.2d 919; State v ... ...
-
State v. Cain
... ... Any evidence showing any form of affirmative participation is sufficient to support a conviction. Kansas City v. Lane, supra. Proof of conduct before, during or after the offense are circumstances from which one's participation in the offense may be inferred. State v. Corbin, 186 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.1945); State v. Castaldi, supra 386 S.W.2d at 395 ... (5) In order to warrant a conviction or make a submissible case based upon circumstantial evidence, the facts and circumstances must (a) be consistent with each other, (b) be consistent with the hypothesis of ... ...