State v. Hogan, No. 38428.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: Tipton
• Citation: 177 S.W.2d 465
• Parties: STATE v. PATRICK HOGAN, alias COURTNEY MURRAY, alias LARRY WAHL, alias JOHN BAKER, alias LARRY BAKER, alias PADDY CLIFFORD, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 07 February 1944
• Docket Number: No. 38428.

177 S.W.2d 465 STATE
v.
PATRICK HOGAN, alias COURTNEY MURRAY, alias LARRY WAHL, alias JOHN BAKER, alias LARRY BAKER, alias PADDY CLIFFORD, Appellant. No. 38428. Supreme Court of Missouri. Dvision Two, February 7, 1944.

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County. — Hon. Peter T. Barrett, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

James T. Riley and S.W. James, Jr., for appellant.

(1) The court erred in permitting the State to cross-examine its witness, Roy Johnson without any showing that he was a hostile witness and without any foundation being laid to show entrapment or surprise. 70 C.J. 801, sec. 1007; State v. Bowen, 263 Mo. 279, 172 S.W. 367; State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363, 34 S.W. 48; Shackleford v. State, 27 S.W. 8; People v. Mitchell, 94 Cal. 550; Hickory v. United States, 151 U.S. 303; 70 C.J. 796, sec. 933; Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 234 Mo. App. 135, 112 S.W. (2d) 865; Clancy v. St. Louis Transit Co., 192 Mo. 615; Beier v. St. Louis Transit Co., 197 Mo. 215, 94 S.W. 367; 70 C.J. 793, sec. 1023; State v. Drummins, 274 Mo. 632, 204 S.W. 271; State v. Gregory, 339 Mo. 133, 96 S.W. (2d) 471; Crabtree v. Kurn, 173 S.W. (2d) 851; State v. Patton, 255 Mo. 245, 164 S.W. 223; Burnham v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 340 Mo. 25, 100 S.W. (2d) 858. (2) The court erred in permitting State's witness, Harry Neubold, to testify about conversations he had with the State's witness, Roy Johnson, not in the presence of the defendant. State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; State v. Rothschild, 68 Mo. 52; State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 17 S.W. 666; State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo. 54, 119 S.W. 405; State v. Bowen, 247 Mo. 584, 153 S.W. 1033; State v. Robinson, 183 S.W. 304; State v. Johnson, 64 S.W. (2d) 655; Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 234 Mo. App. 135, 112 S.W. (2d) 865; State v. Patton, 255 Mo. 245, 164 S.W. 223; State v. Gregory, 339 Mo. 133, 96 S.W. (2d) 47; State v. Drummins, 274 Mo. 632, 204 S.W. 271. (3) The court erred in giving Instruction 8 because it invaded the province of the jury by limiting the freedom of the jury as to the weight to be given to the evidence of the statements alleged to have been made by the defendant. State v. Luna, 162 S.W. (2d) 859; State v. Garrison, 342 Mo. 453, 116 S.W. (2d) 23; State v. Enyard, 108 S.W. (2d) 337; State v. Nibarger, 339 Mo. 937, 98 S.W. (2d) 625; State v. Pope, 338 Mo. 919, 92 S.W. (2d) 904; State v. Long, 336 Mo. 630, 80 S.W. (2d) 154; State v. Duncan, 336 Mo. 600, 80 S.W. (2d) 147; State v. Johnson, 333 Mo. 1008, 63 S.W. (2d) 1000. (4) The court erred in giving Instruction 8 because it singled out the unfavorable statements and told the jury they must consider them, thus giving the evidence of such statements undue prominence to the prejudice of the defendant. State v. Cole, 174 S.W. (2d) 172; State v. Talbert, 174 S.W. (2d) 144; State v. Robertson, 171 S.W. (2d) 718; State v. Garrison, 342 Mo. 453, 116 S.W. (2d) 23; State v. Duncan, 336 Mo. 600, 80 S.W. (2d) 147. (5) The court erred in giving Instructon 8 because it is an unauthorized comment on the evidence, contrary to the provisions of Section 4083, Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1939. State v. Robertson, 171 S.W. (2d) 718; State v. Long, 336 Mo. 630, 80 S.W. (2d) 154; State v. Johnson, 333 Mo. 1008, 63 S.W. (2d) 1000. (6) The court erred in giving Instruction 8 because it told the jury what a presumption of law is with regard to a disputed question of fact upon which they were required to pass. State v. Duncan, 336 Mo. 600, 80 S.W. (2d) 147. (7) It has been held prejudicial error by this court to give such instruction in a criminal case even though there is evidence tending to show both favorable and unfavorable statements to the defendant. State v. Robertson, 171 S.W. (2d) 718; State v. Luna, 162 S.W. (2d) 859; State v. Busch, 342 Mo. 959, 119 S.W. (2d) 265; State v. Garrison, 342 Mo. 453, 116 S.W. (2d) 23.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and John S. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent; Tyre W. Burton of counsel.

(1) The court did not commit error in refusing appellant's instruction in the form of a demurrer which was offered at the close of entire case; assignment of such error in motion for new trial was insufficient. Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v. McGee, 83 S.W. (2d) 98, 336 Mo. 1082; State v. Vigus, 66 S.W. (2d) 854; State v. Layton, 58 S.W. (2d) 454, 332 Mo. 216; State v. Fisher, 46 S.W. (2d) 555; State v. Williams, 22 S.W. (2d) 649, 324 Mo. 179; State v. Harris, 22 S.W. (2d) 802, 324 Mo. 223; State v. Berkowitz, 29 S.W. (2d) 150, 325 Mo. 519; State v. Kraft, 92 S.W. (2d) 626, 338 Mo. 831. (2) The trial court did not commit error in submitting Instruction 8 since there was evidence of oral statements being made by appellant. State v. Stewart, 44 S.W. (2d) 100, 329 Mo. 265; State v. Rose, 44 S.W. 329, 142 Mo. 418; State v. Talbott, 73 Mo. 347; State v. Barbata, 80 S.W. (2d) 865, 336 Mo. 362; State v. Dollarhide, 87 S.W. (2d) 156, 337 Mo. 962; Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v. Pippey, 71 S.W. (2d) 719, 335 Mo. 121; State v. Harlow, 37 S.W. (2d) 419, 327 Mo. 231; State v. Payne, 56 S.W. (2d) 116, 331 Mo. 996. (3) The court did not commit error in allowing the State to cross-examine its own witness Roy Johnson, since it is in the court's discretion to allow cross-examination of a hostile witness. State v. Kinnamon, 285 S.W. 62, 314 Mo. 662; Burnam v. Chicago Great Western R....