State v. Holbert
| Decision Date | 09 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 52240,No. 2,52240,2 |
| Citation | 420 S.W.2d 351 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Bert HOLBERT, Appellant |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Don Anton, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Arthur Litz, St. Louis, for appellant.
PRITCHARD, Commissioner.
The determinative issue on this appeal is whether the state adduced sufficient evidence to justify a finding by the court of guilt of the charge against defendant: carrying a concealed weapon in violation of § 564.610, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., i.e., 'upon or about' his person.
It was stipulated that the testimony of the state's witness, Officer John Reinhardt, given on a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence (on the ground of an illegal seizure of the weapon involved) would be accepted as a part of the state's case of carrying a concealed weapon. Officer Reinhardt, a member of the St. Louis Police Department, found that defendant's automobile had run into the back of a stopped vehicle at the corner of Goodfellow and Natural Bridge in St. Louis. He arrived about 8:30 p.m. and first interrogated the other driver for about twenty minutes. Defendant seemed to be under the influence of alcohol or some other intoxicant or possibly drugs, determined by Reinhardt by defendant's actions, incoherent speech and need of assistance from his automobile. At the time defendant was removed from behind the wheel of the automobile, Officer Reinhardt heard something fall to the floor of the car. When he got defendant out on the street in such position that he would not fall, the officer turned to look as to what fell and saw an automatic pistol lying on the floor right under where defendant's feet would have been. Another like pistol (an automatic) and a large sum of currency and checks from defendant's business were later found in the back seat in or near a valise which had been forced open by the impact of the collision. Immediately after he turned around Reinhardt went into defendant's car and recovered the gun and put it in his pocket.
On cross-examination, Officer Reinhardt testified that when he went to the scene he first saw defendant sitting behind the wheel slumped over with his head down on the steering wheel.
Defendant testified that he did not have a pistol that night, didn't place one in the car, and did not own one of similar type--he had never seen the gun before trial. On redirect examination, Officer Reinhardt testified that he questioned defendant about the gun and he stated that he had bought the two pistols from a man by the name of Manning in East St. Louis.
The state, contending that the foregoing state of facts shows concealment (which facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the state), quotes, "Under the statute defining this offense, the concealment, although not actually on the person, may be in such close proximity to the accused as to be within his easy reach and convenient control," State v. Conley, 280 Mo. 21, 217 S.W. 29(2), and says, 'it seems that the only possible conclusion is that the appellant had a concealed weapon about his person.' Contrarily, defendant contends that there was no evidence as to where the gun was prior to the time Officer Reinhardt heard a noise and then saw the pistol on the floor of the car where defendant's feet would have been.
In the Conley case, supra, the appellant ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nygard
...an automobile has been held by the Missouri courts to be a violation of the statute. See State v. Tate, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 103; State v. Holbert, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 351; and State v. Tillman, Mo., 454 S.W.2d 923. It is thus apparent that the Cabool police officer had probable cause to look under ......
-
United States v. Valentine, 19787.
...overrule the Bordeaux case, the latter decision was nevertheless impliedly overruled in State v. Tate, supra. See also State v. Holbert, 420 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.1967). Of course, each decision stands on its own factual circumstance; we need not make further analysis here. All of these state case......
-
Holbert v. State
...criminal cases involving defendant, see State v. Holbert, Mo.App., 399 S.W.2d 142; State v. Holbert, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 129; and State v. Holbert, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 351. In paragraph 8 of his motion under Rule 27.26 appellant alleges as grounds for vacating his conviction numerous matters, some ......
-
State v. Woolbright, 56335
...v. Bordeaux, 337 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Mo.1960); State v. Crone, 399 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Mo.1966). This case is distinguishable from State v. Holbert, 420 S.W.2d 351 (Mo.1967), cited by appellant, where there was no evidence to show that a pistol found in plain view on the floor of defendant's car was ......