State v. Hanger

• Decision Date: 22 December 1925
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. James HANGER, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

278 S.W. 986

STATE, Respondent, v. James HANGER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

December 22, 1925

Garry H. Yount, of Poplar Bluff, and John L. Moore, of Van Buren for appellant.

Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and J. Henry Caruthers, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

Statement

RAILEY C.

On January 31, 1924, the prosecuting attorney of Wayne county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county a verified information, charging therein that on October 30, 1923, James Hanger and James Crunkleton did feloniously and burglariously break into and enter a certain store building, etc., in Wayne county, Mo., for the purpose of committing burglary and larceny therein. On February 4, 1924, a change of venue was granted this appellant, and the cause sent to the circuit court of Iron county, Mo. On June 19, 1924, appellant was granted a severance from his codefendant, Crunkleton. The case was tried before a jury in Iron county, and on June 20, 1924, a verdict was returned convicting defendant Hanger of burglary, and fixing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. The jury acquitted him of the charge of larceny. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. Thereafter, on the same day, the court granted allocution, rendered judgment, and sentenced appellant in conformity to the verdict aforesaid. He was likewise granted an appeal to this court.

Opinion.

The original defendant, James Crunkleton, was tried and convicted in Iron county, Mo., under the same information, for burglary, sent to the penitentiary for two years, and appealed from the judgment against him to this court. The last case is numbered here 26,512, and is entitled State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Crunkleton, Appellant, 278 S.W. 982. Both cases were tried on the same evidence and the same instruction. The record proper and bills of exceptions in both cases are practically the same. The briefs on both sides are alike, and raise the same questions in both cases. At the oral arguments in this court, both cases were argued and submitted together. We have reached the conclusion that in each case the judgment below should be affirmed.

In State v. Crunkleton, we have written an opinion at this term covering all the questions common to both cases and affirming the judgment below. We hereby adopt the same as part of the opinion in this case, and accordingly...