State v. Fleischmann
| Decision Date | 07 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 22565.,22565. |
| Parties | STATE v. FLEISCHMANN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.
Joseph Fleishman was convicted of receiving stolen property knowing the same to be stolen, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Thomas B. Harvey, of St. Louis (S. S. Bass, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant. Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and Henry B. Hunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, on the 23d day of October, 1919, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, was convicted of receiving stolen property knowing the same to be stolen, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of three years. The crime was alleged to have been committed on the 28th day of December, 1918, in the city of St. Louis.
The only error assigned and presented for our consideration here was the giving of an instruction which told the jury that the expression, "knowing that the property was stolen," did not mean absolute personal and certain knowledge on the part of the defendant, but such knowledge and information as would put a reasonably prudent man, exercising ordinary caution, on his guard and would cause such a man to believe and be satisfied that the property had been stolen.
It has been held that before one can be convicted of receiving stolen property he must know it was stolen; that is, it must be actual knowledge as distinguished from facts which would put a man of ordinary caution upon his inquiry. State v. Ebbeller, 222 S. W. 396; State v. Cavanagh (No. 22280) 225 S. W. 678; State v. Weisman (No. 22194) 225 S. W. 949, decided at the present term and not yet (officially) reported. La the cases cited the reasons for the rule stated are given at length.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
RAILEY and MOZLEY, CC., concur.
The foregoing opinion by WHITE, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
All the Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Day
... ... time. The instruction as given relieved the jury from finding ... or inferring the ultimate fact, to-wit, that defendant did ... actually know, which fact was necessary for them to find ... before returning a verdict of guilty. State v ... Ebbeller, 222 S.W. 397; State v. Fleischmann, ... 228 S.W. 461; State v. Weisman, 225 S.W. 950; State ... v. Ehrenberg, 234 S.W. 830 ... Roy ... McKittrick, Attorney General, and Frank W ... Hayes, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent ... (1) The ... court did not err on its ruling as to the ... ...
-
The State v. Gowdy
... ... of the defendant, in that said instruction did not require ... the jury to find the defendant did actually know the ... hogs were stolen. State v. Ebbeler, 283 Mo. 58; ... State v. Cavanagh, 225 S.W. 678; State v ... Weisman, 225 S.W. 949; State v. Fleischmann, ... 228 S.W. 461; State v. Henderson, 231 S.W. 596 ... Jesse ... W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, ... Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent ... Appellant ... challenges the array of the grand jury in a plea in abatement ... ...
-
State v. Day
...actually know, which fact was necessary for them to find before returning a verdict of guilty. State v. Ebbeller, 222 S.W. 397; State v. Fleischmann, 228 S.W. 461; State v. Weisman, 225 S.W. 950; State v. Ehrenberg, 234 S.W. Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Frank W. Hayes, Assistant At......