State v. Heissler
| Decision Date | 08 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 46835,No. 1,46835,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Partick HEISSLER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
E. Wayne Collinson, Chinn & White, Turner White, Springfield, for appellant.
John M. Dolton, Atty. Gen., Fred L. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
HOLMAN, Commissioner.
Defendant, Patrick Heissler, was charged with the commission of the offense of sodomy, per anus, with a 'certain 11-year-old boy' specifically named in the information. Section 563.230 (). A jury found the defendant guilty and fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of seven years. Defendant has appealed from the ensuing judgment and here contends (1) that the State failed to prove that the vanue of the crime was in Greene County, and (2) that Instruction No. 3 was erroneous. Since the defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction (except for venue), we deem it unnecessary to detail the loathsome occurrences that appear in the evidence in connection with the proof of the actual commission of the offense.
We will first consider the contention that there was no evidence to prove that the offense occurred in Greene County, Missouri. Since that point was specifically raised in the motion for new trial we will review it although we observe that the sufficiency of the evidence was not questioned at the trial by a motion for judgment of acquittal.
The prosecuting witness testified that he lived at 1124 Ethyl and attended York School; that on July 11, 1957, he had attended the show at Landers Theater; that he came out of the theater about 6 p. m. and was looking in the window of a nearby toy store when defendant approached him and asked if he 'wanted to earn a dollar carrying boxes.' The witness stated that he told defendant he did and they walked about three or four blocks down the street to where defendant's car was parked across the street from the Farmers Bank; that they got in the car and drove up past KYTV station to the divided highway; that they went down the divided highway about three blocks and turned off to the left on a rocky road and went about a block, then turned left again and went another block to a brown house and 'turned in the driveway, backed up, and came back down and stopped halfway down this road'; that this point was in sight of the divided highway and it was at that place that the alleged offense was committed.
After the completion of the acts complained of the prosecuting witness was driven back into the city to a point near the home occupied by his uncle and grandmother. The prosecuting witness stated that he was let out of the car about ten minutes until seven and immediately went to his grandmother's home and told his uncle what had happened. The uncle, prosecuting witness, and the latter's mother drove to the police station and reported the incident, and then drove around looking for the defendant's car. A short time later they found a car which the prosecuting witness identified as the one driven by defendant and the location and license number of the car were reported to the police. The car had been moved by the time the police arrived and defendant was later arrested as a result of checking the license records which indicated that defendant was the owner of the car.
The prosecuting witness was examined by a physician about 8 p. m. on the day in question. The physician testified that his examination disclosed that an act of sodomy had occurred.
Instruction No. 1 required the jury to find that the offense charged was committed by the defendant 'at the County of Greene and State of Missouri.' It is true that no witness expressly stated that the scene of the offense was in Greene County. However, it is not necessary that venue be proved by direct and positive evidence. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances in evidence reasonably support the inference that the offense was committed in Greene County. State v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188, 17 S.W. 223; State v. West, 69 Mo. 401; State v. Hartwell, Mo.Sup., 293 S.W.2d 313.
We think that the evidence would reasonably support a finding that the prosecuting witness lived in Springfield and entered the car with defendant in that city and was returned to the same city after the offense was committed. The testimony discloses that after the prosecuting witness entered defendant's car they passed Station KYTV before arriving at the divided highway. We note that in the 1957-1958 edition of the Official Manual of the State of Missouri the location of Station KYTV is given as 999 West Sunshine Road, Springfield, and that the list of 'Television Stations in Missouri' in said Official Manual contains only one station designated as KYTV. Moreover, after the prosecuting witness had been returned to the city the incident was immediately reported to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...from Leavenworth to the Kansas City Courthouse which we take notice is more than 9 miles from the scene of the crime. State v. Heissler, 324 S.W.2d 714, 716(3) (Mo.1959); State v. Garrett, 416 S.W.2d 116, 118(1) (Mo.1967). This is not to suggest that proper questions and answers elicited on......
-
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 75--73
...used them in determining questions relating to sufficiency of evidence. Holland v. Anderson, 196 S.W.2d 175 (Mo., 1946); State v. Heisller, 324 S.W.2d 714 (Mo., 1959); State v. Garrett, 416 S.W.2d 116 (Mo., 1967). We have no hesitation in resorting to the map prepared and issued by the Arka......
-
State v. Langston, 50297
...has to be in Cape Girardeau County, we determine that venue was established; State v. Phillips, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 693, 694; State v. Heissler, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 714, 716; State v. Kenyon, 343 Mo. 1168, 126 S.W.2d 245, 252; and the question was for the jury to find under Instruction 1 that the a......
-
State v. Garrett
...74; State v. Hartwell, Mo., 293 S.W.2d 313; State v. Cobb, 359 Mo. 373, 221 S.W.2d 745; State v. Haun, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 679; State v. Heissler, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 714. As stated in Haun, supra, the venue was sufficiently proved 'if the jury reasonably could have found from facts and circumstanc......