State v. Hall, 23414
| Decision Date | 06 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 23414,23414 |
| Citation | 351 S.W.2d 460 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Fred Leroy HALL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
O. T. Thomsen, Kansas City, for appellant.
William A. Collet, Pros. Atty., Jackson County, Kansas City, for respondent.
The defendant, Fred Leroy Hall, crossed over a public road within his employer's plant area in Jackson County with one of his employer's trucks. He was arrested, charged and tried on the misdemeanor charge of driving and operating a motor vehicle 'over and upon' a public highway in Jackson County, Missouri, without displaying on the rear thereof a registration plate bearing a number from the Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri. Upon trial to the court on a stipulation of facts he was found guilty 'of driving on the highway without a license' and fined $10.00 and costs. This appeal followed. The question presented is one of first impression in this state.
The pertinent evidence is recited in the following stipulation of facts:
'The defendant, at the time of his arrest, was in the employ of the Stewart Sand and Material Company, a Missouri corporation, which owns and operates certain rock mining property known as the Pixley Plant, located in Jackson County about one and one-half miles east of Independence, Missouri, outside of the city limits. The property includes a large mine, rock crusher, concrete plant, railway loading facilities, office and scales. The highway in question, Truman Road (formerly Spring Branch Road), passes through the plant property and is located upon lands owned in fee by the Stewart Sand and Material Company. The mine and rock crusher are on the north side of the road or highway; the scales, office, concrete plant, and railway loading facilities, etc., are on the south side of the highway.
'The defendant, at the time of his arrest, had been in the employ of the Stewart Company as a truck driver for approximately nine years. His employer owns a considerable number of trucks which go upon the highway, all of which bear regular license or registration plates. It also owns several stone trucks (generally three or four) which are used only upon the company premises for hauling rock from the mine to the crusher or from the crusher to the concrete plant or perhaps to load a railroad car. These stone trucks do not bear highway license plates. At the time of the defendant's arrest, he was operating one of his employer's stone or rock trucks at its Pixley Plant, hauling rock to the concrete plant on the opposite side of the highway, and, in doing so, crossing the highway with the stone truck. Such trucks might travel a considerable distance upon a rock road within the Stewart Company premises before it becomes necessary to cross the highway. The stone trucks generally move directly across the highway but might move along the road for a short distance for a better place to get off. The location of the highway at the Pixley Plant does not serve any purpose for the stone trucks. They go upon it only to get across it.
'No record has been found of any right-of-way deed to the State of Missouri or of any proceedings to establish a highway upon the property in question, and the existing highway easement apparently was established by prescription or permissive use only.
'The arresting officer testified that at the time of the arrest the defendant drove on the highway, moved along it about 150 or 200 feet, and then moved off to the opposite side. The defendant did not operate the truck upon the highway at any point beyond his employer's plant area covered by deed recorded in Book 1210, page 264, at Independence, Missouri.
The transcript recites: '* * * The parties agree * * * the question * * *, whether a truck of the Stewart Company operated across such roadway, within the limits of the plant area, is required to bear a state registration plate.'
'Defendant's attorney: Is it Your Honor's suggestion the stone trucks therefore could cross the highway without a license, in the event they go directly across and not move along it in any degree?'
The trial judge stated 'for a man to cross the road to get from one part of his property to another, * * * (he) should not be required to procure a state license to travel across the road, but when they get out upon the highway and travel any distance up and down the highway, I feel it is not up to this court to determine what distance a man has to travel along the highway to require him to buy a license.'
Section 301.020 provides: 'Every owner of a motor vehicle or trailer, which shall be operated or driven upon the highways of this state' shall file with the director of revenue an application of registration.
Section 301.130(5) RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., provides: 'Before being operated on any highway of this state every motor vehicle or trailer shall have displayed the license plates or temporary permit issued by the director * * *.' Section 301.440 provides that upon conviction punishment is by fine of from $5.00 to $500.00 or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding two years, or both.
It is appellant's contention that the owner of land through which a highway passes may make any use of it which does not interfere with public travel or proper police regulation, including crossing over it, and that the Motor Vehicle Licensing Law is inapplicable to the facts before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Carlton
...supra note 17, 399 S.W.2d at 599(3--5); City of St. Louis v. Brune Management Co., Mo.App., 391 S.W.2d 943, 946(2); State v. Hall, Mo.App., 351 S.W.2d 460, 463(3); Willis v. American National Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 98, 104(6); City of St. Louis v. Triangle Fuel Co., Mo.App., 193......
-
State v. Patterson
...doubt arise as to whether the accused is included within a given statute, that doubt will be resolved in his favor. State v. Hall, 351 S.W.2d 460, 463(3) (Mo.App.1961). Of course, in addition to the state's usual burden in a criminal cause, there is also its burden of adducing substnatial e......
-
State v. Smith
...whether the person charged is embraced within the prohibition, that doubt will be resolved in favor of the accused. State v. Hall, Mo.App., 351 S.W.2d 460, 463(3). Moreover, the State has the burden to adduce substantial evidence of every constituent element of the charged offense (State v.......
-
State v. Alderman
...to whether the person charged is included within a given statute, that doubt will be resolved in favor of the accused. State v. Hall, 351 S.W.2d 460, 463(3) (Mo.App.1961). An adjunct of the state's onus probandi is its burden of adducing substantial evidence of every constituent element of ......