State v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 28 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 26637.,26637. |
| Citation | 284 S.W. 799 |
| Parties | STATE v. HENDERSON et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bates County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.
Harlan Henderson and Bob Henderson were convicted of larceny, and they appeal. Affirmed.
North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Claud Curtis, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for' the State.
The appellants were charged by information in the circuit court of Bates county with burglary and larceny. They were acquitted of the burglary and convicted of the larceny, and each sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From these judgments they appeal.
Some time during the month of December, 1924, two rugs, valued by the state's testimony at from $40 to $50, and owned by S. P. Weedin, disappeared from an outhouse owned by one Stanley Ferguson, where they were stored. Upon a search being instituted under a warrant regularly issued, the rugs were found concealed in the attic of the home of the father of the appellants. Arraigned before a justice of the peace for preliminary examination, they admitted burglarizing the house and stealing the rugs. This they had before admitted to the officers who arrested them. Upon the information being filed in the circuit court charging them with the crimes stated, they demanded a trial, and in their testimony stated that the rugs were not worth more than $25, and that they did not burglarize the house in taking them, but went in through an open door. The state, in rebuttal, offered testimony to the effect that the door of the house was not open, and that the reputation of the appellants for truth, veracity, honesty, and fair dealing in the neighborhood in which they lived was bad. The jury found each of them guilty as stated. They perfected their appeals, and the errors they allege were committed to their prejudice are for consideration.
We have not been favored with briefs for the appellants, and we must glean from the motion for a new trial the nature of their contentions for a reversal.
I. The information was in one count. It conformed to the requirements of the statute (section 3305, R. S. 1919), and in like language has frequently been approved by this court. State v. Burns, 263 Mo. 594, 173 S. W. 1070; State v. Blockberger, 247 Mo. loc. cit. 605, 153 S. W. 1031, and cases.
II. The verdict returned was as follows:
"We, the jury, find each of the defendants not guilty of burglary in the second degree, and we, the jury, find each defendant guilty of grand larceny, and assess the punishment of each at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years."
There is no uncertainty in this verdict. It finds each of the appellants not guilty of burglary, but does find each them guilty of grand larceny. It could not be more definite, and it is not subject to valid objection.
III. Error was not committed in the introduction of testimony by the state to show that the reputation of the appellants for truth and veracity was bad in the neighborhood in which they lived, although they had not put their characters in issue. They had, however, testified in their own behalf, and, under the rule which has received legislative, as well as frequent judicial approval, it was permissible for the state to impeach their credibility, as in the case of other witnesses. Section 4036, R. S. 1919; State v. Lemon (Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ash
...acquitted defendant of the larceny and he is in no position to successfully urge error in connection with its submission. State v. Henderson, Mo., 284 S.W. 799; State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572, 178 S.W.2d 449; State v. Cain, Mo.App., 31 S.W.2d 559; State v. Lawson, 360 Mo. 95, 227 S.W.2d 642;......
-
Szuch v. Ni Sun Lines
...There was no evidence before the jury as to the character of the witnesses. State v. Anslinger, 71 S.W. 1041, 171 Mo. 600; State v. Henderson, 284 S.W. 799. (b) The sentence of defendants' Instruction 9, is the "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" clause. This part of the credibility instructi......
-
State v. Tucker
...(1) The information is not challenged. It was proper to allege burglary and larceny in one count. Sec. 4056, R. S. 1929; State v. Henderson, 284 S.W. 799; State Carey, 278 S.W. 719; State v. Tipton, 271 S.W. 55. The verdict is in proper form. State v. Henderson, supra; State v. Carey, supra......
-
State v. Eason
...statement, hence the court cannot be convicted of error on that account. [State v. Scanlon, 308 Mo. 683, 273 S.W. 1063; State v. Henderson, 284 S.W. 799.] Moreover, witness's testimony was only as to defendant's intemperate and shiftless habits and his previous assaults upon his wife, and w......