State v. Eggleston

• Decision Date: 05 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 16870.,16870.
• Citation: 27 S.W.2d 726
• Parties: STATE v. EGGLESTON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

27 S.W.2d 726

STATE v. EGGLESTON.

No. 16870.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 5, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Buchanan County; J. V. Gaddy, Judge.

J. A. Eggleston was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Horace Merritt and John E. Heffley, both of St. Joseph, for appellant.

Homer C. King, Pros. Atty., and William Sherwood, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of St. Joseph, for the State.

BOYER, C.

Criminal prosecution for receiving stolen property. The appellant, defendant below, and another, were charged by information of the prosecuting attorney, duly verified by him, with having bought and received three automobile tires, three automobile inner tubes, and three automobile tire rims of the value of $50 with knowledge that same had been stolen. The information was filed September 27, 1928. The case was continued to the January, 1929, term and came on for trial against defendant alone, February 11, at the conclusion of which the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed defendant's punishment at 30 days in jail and a fine of $100.

The evidence on behalf of the state tended to show that one Moran owned an automobile the wheels of which were equipped with tires, tubes, and rims; his car was stolen June 21, 1928, in the nighttime, and when found the next day three tires with tubes and rims of the wheels were missing from the car. He next saw these articles at the police station when defendant and another were present, and identified the tires, tubes, and rims as his property.

Defendant was engaged in the general automobile tire business located at Tenth and Francis streets in the city of St. Joseph. He dealt in both new and used tires. A man by the name of King was employed by him, or was associated with him in business, and was compensated by receiving a commission. A boy by the name of Gerald Hughes, with two others, stole the Moran car on the date named and removed the three tires with tubes and rims above mentioned; hid the same until the next day, when they called at the shop or place of business of defendant and talked with the man King about selling the articles, with another tire from a different car which they also had. King examined the tires and Hughes agreed to sell them to him for the sum of $8. King went into the tire shop and into the main office, returned, and said, "All right." Hughes then informed him that the tires had been stolen in Tulsa, Okl. The tires were placed in the storeroom of defendant's tire shop. Hughes then went into the main office, which was occupied by defendant Eggleston, and received a check from him for the amount of $8 in payment for the tires. Eggleston at the time requested Hughes not to say anything about the transaction "to the office force." Hughes did not tell Eggleston that the tires were stolen and did not hear any one else tell him so; all of the transaction was not with King; Eggleston was in front of the shop and told Hughes where to put the tires. The tires were taken into a room and placed one on top of another and some old pieces of tires and lining were thrown on top of them. One of the boys who was with Hughes testified to practically the same facts, except that he took no part in the transactions with Eggleston.

Hughes cashed the check that afternoon at the bank upon which it was drawn, and the cashier of the bank identified the ledger account of defendant Eggleston, which was introduced in evidence, showing the payment of only one $8 check listed on the ledger sheet under date of June 23, and stated that all checks cashed between 2 and 3 o'clock on June 22 would appear on the ledger account bearing the date of the following day.

June 22, the day on which the tires were sold and delivered at defendant's place of business, two members of the police department of St. Joseph called on defendant at his place of business about 3 o'clock p. m., and inquired if any one had been there to sell any tires, and defendant said, "No." The officers left the place and returned in a few minutes thereafter, and upon examination of the place discovered the tires and other articles belonging to Mr. Moran. They were found in the storage room covered up and partially hidden by old tires, tube casings, and the like. Before the discovery, Eggleston was asked if there were any tires in there with rims on, and he said there could not be unless they were just put there. Upon search by the officers the tires were discovered with the rims. Defendant's place of business occupied three rooms, one room being the office and sales room, another room immediately north of it being used as the repair room, and the third room immediately north of that being the storage room where the old tires were kept. The only entrance to the storage room was through a door leading from the repair room, and the repair room was connected with the main office by a doorway leading to it. The tire dealer from whom Mr. Moran purchased his tires testified that the value of the tires, tubes, and rims was about $45. The defendant and his employee, King, purchased these tires, together with a fourth one, for the total sum of $8.

The theft of the Moran car had been reported to the police department and there was also a report sent in that some boys were trying to sell tires in the vicinity of defendant's place of business. In addition to the inquiry made by the police officers before mentioned, another officer and his companion called at defendant's place of business, saw and asked him if any one had been there, and he said, "No," and then after waiting a brief time said "Yes" they had been there and had gone to another place, naming it. Upon calling at that place the officers learned that no one had been there. It was about that time or shortly thereafter when the other officers mentioned discovered the property at defendant's place of business.

Defendant testified in his own behalf that he did not buy any tires from Hughes; that he had never seen Hughes before he testified in the case, and that Hughes and his companion who also testified were never in his office at any time; that King's duties consisted of vulcanizing and repairing tires, speculating upon the selling of old tires, and that he worked on a commission basis; that Eggleston furnished the money to King for the payment of merchandise bought upon speculation. He positively stated that at the time in question he did not deliver to Hughes a check in the amount of $8. On cross-examination it was shown that the material in the room in which the tires were found had been recently sorted; that King had worked for defendant about eight months; that after payment for material and repairs King received 75 per cent. and Eggleston 25 per cent. from their speculations; that defendant ran his business under the name of the Central Tire & Service Company and kept its bank account in one bank and defendant's personal account in another bank, it being the one upon which Hughes claimed to have received the check and where it was cashed. The wife of defendant also testified that the boy Hughes and his companion who testified were not in the office of defendant on the afternoon in question.

The points made on appeal are: (1) That the court should have directed a verdict for defendant because there was no evidence of knowledge on the part of defendant that the goods purchased was stolen property; (2) that the court erred in denying defendant's application for a continuance; (3) that the court erred in denying defendant's application for change of venue; and (4) that the court erred in giving instructions 4, 5, and 6. They will be considered in the order named, and other pertinent facts will be stated in the course of the opinion.

Opinion.

The question of jurisdiction suggests itself, but upon examination we find that in this particular class of offense the jurisdiction on appeal is in this court, notwithstanding the fact that the information charges the commission of a felony. State v. Woodson, 248 Mo. 705, 154 S. W. 705.

Appellant insists that the gist of the offense is guilty knowledge on the part of the receiver of the stolen goods which must be charged and proved; and that there is no evidence in this case, either direct or circumstantial, to show guilty knowledge on the part of the appellant. We agree with appellant that such knowledge on the part of defendant must be alleged and proved, but do not agree with him that there is no evidence in this case to support the verdict of the jury. On the other hand, we think that the evidence is amply sufficient upon which the jury might predicate its verdict; and that under the facts and circumstances in evidence it was a question of fact for the determination of the jury as to whether defendant purchased and received the property at his place of business with knowledge on his part that it was stolen property. Such knowledge may be deduced from his suspicious conduct, and deceptive behavior, false statements to the officers, and his request that the person from whom the property was purchased say nothing about it. The fact that he was buying 40 or 50 dollars' worth of property for $8 was in itself sufficient to induce a belief on the part of a reasonable person that he was buying stolen goods. The conduct and demeanor of defendant as described by the officers is persuasive of the fact, and is sufficient for an inference, that defendant knew he had committed an offense and was endeavoring to conceal it. It is not contended that the information fails to charge knowledge on the part of defend...