State v. Gochenour
| Citation | 225 S.W. 690 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 22273.,22273. |
| Parties | STATE v. GOCHENOUR. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Harrison County; L. B. Woods, Judge.
Clarence Gochenour was convicted of stealing an automobile, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Garland Wilson, of Bethany, and Perry, of Kansas City, Kan., for appellant.
Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and Lewis Hord Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Facts.
On October 22, 1919, defendant was informed against by the prosecuting attorney of Harrison county, Mo., wherein he was charged with stealing a Ford car of the value of $500, the property of one J. E. Puttorff.
Upon trial he was found guilty by a jury and his punishment fixed at two years in the state penitentiary. Sentence, upon said verdict, was duly pronounced by the court. Motion for new trial was filed and overruled, and the case is here on appeal.
Opinion.We have carefully examined the testimony offered at the trial and have reached the conclusion that there was enough substantial' evidence to go to the jury. Orsen Shultz, one of the participants in the theft of the car stated, among other matters: That defendant, Orville Caywood, J. C. Williams, alias "Slim," and himself, were, at the time the car was stolen, engaged in hauling whisky from St. Joseph into Iowa. That the whisky belonged to defendant, himself, and Orville Caywood. On or about the 25th day of June, 1919, these parties undertook to haul a load of whisky to the above destination. Defendant had his own car, and the other had a larger car. Each contained a portion of the liquor. The larger car broke down and its load was transferred to the Ford car. Defendant was present and assisted in making the transfer. At Hatfield Caywood and "Slim" stole the car mentioned in the information and drove to Caywood's home in Iowa and transferred part of the liquor from defendant's car to the stolen car. As stated, defendant was present and assisted in making these transfers of the liquor. From Caywood's they drove to Anita, Iowa, defendant's home. He drove the stolen car to his brother-in-law's, returned to defendant's the next day, and "Caywood, defendant, myself, and Slim" drove the car to St. Joseph, and. July 1, returned to defendant's place, and went on to Anita; Iowa. Returned in about a week and left the car with defendant, who, With his wife and "Slim," went in said car to Sioux City.
Defendant testified in his own behalf as follows:
Defendant denied that he stole the car or that he aided in the theft and denied that he had any interest in it. Further testifying, he said:
We think this and other testimony shown by the record was sufficient to justify the court in submitting the case to the jury. The demurrer was properly overruled.
"The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the county of Harrison, state of Missouri, within three days prior to the filing of the information in this case, that one Orsen Shultz and C. G. Williams, alias 'Slim,' did then and there steal, take, and carry away a certain automobile, to wit, a Ford touring car, and that the same was of the value of more than $30 and was the property of one J. E. Puttorff, and that the defendant, Clarence Goehenour, was then and there present aiding and abbetting in the taking of said property, then you should find the defendant guilty as charged in the information, and assess his punishment at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary Realty Co. v. Swinney
...Mo. 407; Hoover v. Railroad, 115 Mo. 77. Judge Woodson's minority opinion has no conclusive effect as a precedent. 15 C.J. 938; State v. Gochenour, 225 S.W. 690; Mapes v. Burns, 72 Mo. App. 411. (4) Appellant was not in privity with Tammen. This court has expressly so decided. Gary Realty C......
-
State ex rel. Gosselin v. Trimble
... ... (b) The opinion in Maniaci v ... Interurban Express Co., 266 Mo. 633, was not concurred ... in by a majority of the court, and is not a binding ... precedent. Coleman v. Haworth, 8 S.W.2d 931; ... Viquesney v. Kansas City, 305 Mo. 488; State v ... Frost, 289 S.W. 895; State v. Gochenour, 225 ... S.W. 690. However, there is no conflict with the Maniaci ... opinion, the facts in that case being so different as to make ... the case inapplicable. (c) There is no conflict with ... Goucan v. Atlas Portland Cement Co., 317 Mo. 919, ... because the opinion below gave the plaintiff ... ...
-
Gary Realty Co. v. Swinney
... ... C. L. 839; 23 Cyc. 1062. This court has ... superintending control over inferior courts. Sec. 6, 1884 ... Amendments, Mo. Const.; State ex rel. Security Ins. Co ... v. Trimble, 300 S.W. 812; State ex rel. McFarland v ... Terte, 8 S.W.2d 19; State ex rel. v. Trimble, ... 297 ... Railroad, 115 ... Mo. 77. Judge Woodson's minority opinion has no ... conclusive effect as a precedent. 15 C. J. 938; State v ... Gochenour, 225 S.W. 690; Mapes v. Burns, 72 ... Mo.App. 411. (4) Appellant was not in privity with Tammen ... This court has expressly so decided. Gary ... ...
-
State v. Martin
... ... contends the amended information was fatally defective ... because it failed to allege he took the rings with intent to ... convert them to his own use. There is no merit in the ... assignment. It was formerly so held, State v. Gochenour ... (Mo. Div. 2), 225 S.W. 690, 691(3). But that decision ... has long since been overruled, State v. Hodges (Mo. Div ... 2), 234 S.W. 789, 790(2); State v. Hamlin, 351 ... Mo. 157, 171 S.W.2d 714, 715(3) ... It is ... also asserted the information should have charged the ... ...