State v. Drake, No. 45435
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | HYDE |
| Citation | 298 S.W.2d 374 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 45435 |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1957 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Carl Benton DRAKE, Appellant |
Page 374
v.
Carl Benton DRAKE, Appellant.
Page 375
Cecil Block, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Donal D. Guffey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Page 376
HYDE, Judge.
Defendant appealed from conviction of burglary in the second degree and sentence of two years in the penitentiary. (See Secs. 560.070 and 560.095, statutory references are to RSMo and V.A.M.S.) He was charged jointly with Thomas Jesse Brown but was granted a severance. Brown was tried first, convicted and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary and this judgment was affirmed on his appeal. State. v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 291 S.W.2d 615.
Defendant has filed no brief so we will consider all valid assignments of error made in his motion for new trial and all matters previously considered record proper set out in Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S. State v. Pitts, Mo.Sup., 282 S.W.2d 561. The evidence was substantially the same as in State v. Brown, supra, as to the facts of someone breaking into the rear of the basement of the Boathouse building in Boschertown (where a store owned by Marguerite Dallmeyer was operated by her husband Helmuth) setting off the burglary alarm, notification of the owner and police by a nearby resident who heard the alarm, the arrest of defendant and Brown about 25 minutes later as they drove into St. Charles (driving with lights off until they reached the city limits) on the Highway from Boschertown, the finding of crowbars and screwdrivers on the floor of the truck in which they were arrested, and the investigation made by the officers by which they determined that some of these tools fitted into the maks on the window, window sash and door of the Boathouse building. Reference is made to that opinion, 291 S.W.2d loc. cit. 517, for details. It was also shown herein that the officers took defendant's shoes to the Boathouse and that they fitted tracks on the dirt floor of the basement. We, therefore, rule against defendant's assignments, that no submissible case was made and that he was entitled to a directed verdict, and hold there was substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Brown, supra. Likewise, on the same authority and for the reasons therein stated, we rule against defendant's assignments as to his motion to suppress evidence and as to admitting in evidence the tools, gloves and flashlight found in the truck in which he and Brown were arrested, and hold that there were reasonable grounds for making the arrest in this case so that the officers had the right to search the truck and seize these articles for use in evidence.
Defendant also made assignments that the Court erred in permitting Deputy Sheriff Dapron to testify that one of the crowbars was used in forcing open the window, making a demonstration with the window sash before the jury and to testify that heel and shoe marks on the premises were made by defendant's shoes. The basis stated for these assignments is that this testimony was an opinion and that Dapron was not qualified as an expert to give an opinion about these matters. These assignments are without merit. This testimony was not a statement of opinions or conclusions but testimony as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oliveira
...crime, and the lack of expertise of the witnesses only went to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the evidence); State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Mo. 1957) (noting that there was no error when a non-expert testified that shoe marks at the scene of a burglary were made bydefendant'......
-
State v. Jells, No. 89-1187
...crime, and the lack of expertise of the witnesses only went to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence); State v. Drake (Mo.1957), 298 S.W.2d 374 (no error where nonexpert testifies that shoe marks at the scene of a burglary were made by defendant's shoes, since testimony was as to p......
-
Hutt v. State, No. 964
...D'Antignac v. State, 238 Ga. 437, 233 S.E.2d 206 (1977); Johnson v. State, 177 Ind.App. 501, 380 N.E.2d 566 (1978); State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.1957); State v. Cullen, 591 S.W.2d 49 (Mo.App.1979); Irvin v. State, 66 So.2d 288 (Fla.1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.......
-
State v. Pendergrass, No. 14662
...conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, p. 52 (1972). Also see, State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.1957); State v. Marshall, 354 Mo. 312, 189 S.W.2d 301 A definition widely used in federal courts is as follows: A reasonable doubt is a doub......
-
State v. Oliveira
...crime, and the lack of expertise of the witnesses only went to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the evidence); State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374, 376 (Mo. 1957) (noting that there was no error when a non-expert testified that shoe marks at the scene of a burglary were made bydefendant'......
-
State v. Jells, No. 89-1187
...crime, and the lack of expertise of the witnesses only went to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence); State v. Drake (Mo.1957), 298 S.W.2d 374 (no error where nonexpert testifies that shoe marks at the scene of a burglary were made by defendant's shoes, since testimony was as to p......
-
Hutt v. State, No. 964
...D'Antignac v. State, 238 Ga. 437, 233 S.E.2d 206 (1977); Johnson v. State, 177 Ind.App. 501, 380 N.E.2d 566 (1978); State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.1957); State v. Cullen, 591 S.W.2d 49 (Mo.App.1979); Irvin v. State, 66 So.2d 288 (Fla.1953), cert. denied 346 U.S. 927, 74 S.Ct. 316, 98 L.......
-
State v. Pendergrass, No. 14662
...conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, p. 52 (1972). Also see, State v. Drake, 298 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.1957); State v. Marshall, 354 Mo. 312, 189 S.W.2d 301 A definition widely used in federal courts is as follows: A reasonable doubt is a ......