State v. Daubert
| Citation | 42 Mo. 239 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. LOUISA DAUBERT, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1868 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court
Hudgins, Woerner & Kehr, for appellant.
C. P. Johnson, Circuit Attorney, for respondent.
The defendant was jointly indicted with one Johanna Williken, for the crime of larceny, in taking certain articles of merchandise from the store of one Charles H. Moeller, in the city of St. Louis. Upon the trial, the defendant demanded a severance, and elected to be tried separately. She was convicted of petit larceny, and the jury assessed her punishment at a fine of fifty dollars and three months' imprisonment in the county jail. The errors complained of, and on which reliance is placed for the reversal of the judgment, are the admission of illegal evidence against the objection of the prisoner, and the misdirection of the jury.
The facts are few and simple, and are mainly these: The defendant and Mrs. Williken went to the store of the prosecutor, ostensibly for the purpose of purchasing goods. While examining various articles, the suspicions of the prosecutor became aroused concerning certain movements of Mrs. Williken. The defendant bought whatever goods she wanted; had the bill made out; received and paid for them. Both women were then detained by those in charge of the store, and an attempt was made to search them. Mrs. Williken permitted the search to be made; the defendant resisted. Upon the person of Mrs. Williken several articles were found, alleged to have been stolen, and she finally admitted the fact, and promised not to steal any more, if they would let her go. A policeman was then called, who arrested the women and took them to the police station. The defendant was then searched, but nothing was found on her person, or in her possession, except the articles she had purchased and paid for. Some articles, claimed to have been stolen from the prosecutor, the next morning were found in an alley, but there is no evidence in anywise tending to prove that the defendant was ever out of the store previous to her being arrested and taken to the police station, or that she was in a situation to have any connection with their being placed there. Other evidence was introduced against the objections of the defendant, showing that the two women had visited other stores together; but there was nothing to show any common design between them, or that they had committed any improprieties. The counsel for the prisoner objected to all the evidence relating to the acts, declarations, and admissions of Mrs. Williken, but the court overruled the objection and permitted the testimony to go to the jury.
If the testimony was illegally admitted, the verdict cannot be allowed to stand; for, outside of the acts and confessions of Mrs. Williken, there is no evidence on which to base a conviction against the accused. For aught that appears, she demeaned herself as any honest person would have done in the transaction of her business, making her purchases and paying for them. Nor were any suspicious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Levy
...Stonebraker, 36 Mo. 345; Price v. Evans, 49 Mo. 396; Garrett v. Greenwell, 92 Mo. 120, 4 S.W. 441; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 239; State Brosius, 39 Mo. 534; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242, 5 S.W. 906.) Where the evidence leaves the de......
-
State v. Stogsdill
...and the court erred in admitting them. State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 98; State v. Weaver, 165 Mo. 1; State v. Thompson, 238 S.W. 787; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 239; State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32. (6) It was error to admit in evidence the statements, conversations and threats alleged to have been made......
-
State v. Anderson
...65 Mo. 84. The ninth instruction in regard to the admissions of one defendant not affecting or binding the other was correct. State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 239; State v. Duncan, 64 Mo. 262; State v. Reed & Fredericks, 85 Mo. 145. The tenth instruction as to the credibility of witnesses, and the ......
-
State v. Gregory
...a new trial for the reason that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. State v. Liston, 315 Mo. 1313, 292 S.W. 45; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; State Young, 237 Mo. 170, 140 S.W. 873; State v. Wilton, 225 S.W. 965; State v. Kinnamon, 314 Mo. 662, 285 S.W. 62. (2) The court ......