State v. Gibson.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 27937.,27937. |
| Citation | 300 S.W. 1106 |
| Parties | STATE v. GIBSON |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Samuel A. Dew, Judge.
Russell Gibson was convicted of feloniously exhibiting a deadly weapon in a threatening manner, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Edward J. Curtin, James P. Aylward, and Harry L. Jacobs, all of Kansas City, for appellant.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Claude Curtis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was charged by indictment on the 26th day of June, 1925, in the circuit court of Jackson county, with having unlawfully and feloniously exhibited in a rude, angry, and threatening manner, in the presence of several persons named, a certain deadly weapon, to wit, a Colt's automatic revolver. Upon a trial to a jury, March 5, 1926, he was convicted and his punishment assessed at 2 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.
The testimony for the state was to the effect that the appellant on the 11th of June, 1925, left an automobile for repairs in a garage in Kansas City conducted by two persons named Le Baugh and Hahne. At about 11 o'clock, p. m., on the night of June 11 the appellant and another went to the garage for the car and sought to take it therefrom without paying for the repairs, saying that ho wanted to try it out and would pay the amount due later; that if he was denied permission to take the car he would take it anyway. Appellant and the man who had accompanied him to the garage then got into the car and started to leave the garage. Le Baugh, one of the proprietors, picked up a stick and went around in front of the car to prevent its being taken out of the garage, when the appellant got out of the car, walked around to where Le Baugh was standing, took the stick out of his hand, and hit him on the head with a revolver. Before striking Le Baugh appellant flourished the revolver and pointed it at Le Baugh. There were other facts in evidence on the part of the state not relevant to the matter here at issue, except so far as they may serve to show the appellant's threatening attitude at the time he exhibited the weapon.
The appellant did not testify. A witness in his behalf testified that he was present when the appellant and another came to the garage; that the appellant said he wanted to try out the car; that he did not have the money to pay for the repairs, but would get it shortly. Le Baugh said he could not have the car, and appellant asked Le Baugh to go with him in trying out the car, which the latter declined to do. They then began arguing, and Le Baugh picked up a stick and started towards the appellant when the latter got something which looked like a wrench out of the car and struck Le Baugh with it. The witness did not hear the appellant use any profanity or boisterous language in the controversy or otherwise manifest anger or flourish a revolver in a rude, threatening manner.
The jury gave credence to the testimony of the witnesses for the state and not that adduced on behalf of the appellant.
I. The statute (section 3275, R. S. 1919) under which the indictment was drawn embodies in its terms all of the essential elements of the crime charged. Under such circumstances we have held it sufficient to charge the offense in the language of the statute. While the sufficiency of the charge was not ruled upon in State v. Gentry (Mo. Sup.) 242 S. W. 398, nor in State v. Morris, 263 Mo. 339, 172 S. W. 603, nor in State v. Arnett, 258 Mo. 253, 167 S. W. 526, an examination of the transcripts shows that it was deemed sufficient in these cases to charge the offense in the language of the statute. The indictment under review therefore conforms to these requirements, and the contention as to its invalidity is overruled.
II. The evidence adduced on the part of the state was ample to sustain the verdict. The jury was well within its province in giving credence to the testimony of the witnesses for the state and in refusing to believe that introduced on behalf of the appellant. We have set forth all of the relevant testimony. It is brief, and an examination of the same will demonstrate its sufficiency to sustain a conviction and in so doing show that the jury did not abuse or exceed its power in its finding. What is clear and conclusive can never be made more so by many words. Verbiage unnecessarily employed obscures rather than clarifies the presentation of a matter at issue. The contention therefor, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, is not supported...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holloway
...to the law as submitted to the jury by instructions. Secs. 4376, 4378, R.S. 1939; State v. Turpin, 332 Mo. 1012, 61 S.W.2d 945; State v. Gibson, 300 S.W. 1106; State v. Barbata, 336 Mo. 362, 80 S.W.2d State v. Pinkard, 318 Mo. 751, 300 S.W. 748. (3) Allocution, judgment and sentence are in ......
-
State v. Smith
...Medley, 360 Mo. 1032, 232 S.W.2d 519, 523; State v. Egan, supra. Reasons first stated in appellant's brief are of no avail. State v. Gibson, Mo., 300 S.W. 1106[5, 6]; State v. Hampton, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 356, 359. See Stembridge v. State of Georgia, 343 U.S. 541, 547, 72 S.Ct. 834, 96 L.Ed. 11......
-
State v. Long
... ... 771] at twenty-five years in ... the penitentiary of Missouri. (signed) James R. Abercrombie, ... Foreman." "It designates the offense with which the ... appellant is charged and prescribes a punishment authorized ... by the statute ... More is not required." [State v ... Gibson (Mo.), 300 S.W. 1106.] ... The ... record seems to indicate appellant was accorded allocution, ... but we are of the opinion that the form thereof, as shown, ... was irregular and defective, in that it does not appear that ... when appellant appeared for judgment, he was ... ...
-
State v. Worley
... ... Brookshire, Mo.Sup., 325 S.W.2d 497, 500. Failure to raise the constitutional question in the trial court precludes our consideration of it here. State v. Lofton, Mo.Sup., 1 S.W.2d 830, 832(2, 3); State v. Gibson, Mo.Sup., 300 S.W. 1106, 1107(5, 6) ... We have examined the matters of record specified by Supreme Court Rule 28.02. The information charges the offense generally in the language of the statute (Section 195.020). It charges unlawful possession or control. In State v. Virdure, ... ...