State v. Gatewood

• Decision Date: 02 July 1924
• Docket Number: No. 3531.,3531.
• Parties: STATE v. GATEWOOD et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

264 S.W. 42

STATE v. GATEWOOD et al.

No. 3531.

Springfield Court of Appeals, Missouri.

July 2, 1924.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

John Gatewood and Rube Gatewood were convicted of liquor offenses, and they appeal. Judgment of conviction as to first-named defendant affirmed, and as to the second-named defendant reversed.

A. S. Oliver and Ward & Reeves, all of Caruthersville, for appellants.

COX, P. J.

Defendants, John Gatewood and Rube Gatewood, were jointly charged in three counts of unlawfully possessing a still, manufacturing intoxicating liquor, and possession of intoxicating liquor. They were both found guilty of possessing a still and possessing intoxicating liquor, and separate punishment assessed on each charge and acquitted on the charge of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. Defendants then appealed.

It is insisted by counsel that the evidence is not sufficient to support a conviction as to Rube Gatewood. A still and some intoxicating liquor were found in a small lot near the home of defendant John Gatewood, who was the father of Rube Gatewood. Rube Gatewood at the time lived at the home of his father. These facts, coupled with the further fact that when Rube was arrested he told the officers that the still was his, and that if he could get off for $100 he would plead guilty, are all the evidence there is as to the guilt of Rube Gatewood. We do not think this sufficient to sustain a conviction. Certainly not as to possession of intoxicating liquor, for he said nothing about it and there was no evidence that he was in actual possession of any intoxicating liquor. His statement that the still was his was in the nature of a confession and, had it been previously proven that he was in possession of the small lot where the still was found, would then have been admissible against him, and the proof all together would have warranted a conviction on the charge of possession of the still, but the statement that the still was his, being in the nature of a confession and standing alone, will not support a conviction, for a person cannot be convicted on proof of a confession alone when made out of court.

There must be such corroboration that, when considered in connection with the confession, will show beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695, 708; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95, 111, 9 S. W. 646, 11 S. W. 1133; Id., 08 Mo. 135, 11 S. W. 727; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 141, 176, 83 S. W. 1083; State v. Meyer, 293 Mo. 108, 113, 238 S. W. 457.

We may...