State v. Hood
| Decision Date | 09 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 46542,No. 1,46542,1 |
| Citation | 313 S.W.2d 661 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenneth HOOD and Ray Eugene Warren, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
No appearance for appellants.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., James E. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendants, Kenneth Hood and Ray Eugene Warren, were jointly charged with and, upon joint trial by jury in the Circuit Court of Cole County, each was found guilty of robbery in the first degree and his punishment, separately assessed, was fixed at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of five years. They have jointly appealed from the sentences imposed upon them in accord with the verdict rendered. Neither defendant has furnished us with a brief and we therefore review the essential portions of the record, as required by S.Ct.Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S., and the assignments of error validly set forth in their joint motion for directed judgments of acquittal and, in the alternative, their joint motion for new trial, as required by S.Ct.Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S. State v. Dess, Mo., 276 S.W.2d 201, 203.
The evidence in behalf of the State justifies the following statement of facts:
On July 4, 1956, both defendants and one Alvin Shockley were inmates of the State Penitentiary. At about the hour of eight o'clock in the morning, Shockley was in the men's latrine, which was situate at one side and below the level of the prison yard. He started to leave by walking up a series of steps leading to the yard level, at which point he was confronted by both defendants. One of them, later indentified by him as Hood, pushed something against Shockley's belly and said 'Let's have that $15 commissary book.' Shockley momentarily thought Hood was joking and watched his face. He felt something stick him and, looking down, saw that the object held by Hood against his belly was a knife resembling a bayonet. This placed Shockley in immediate fear of injury to his person and he offered no resistance. Again Hood said, 'All right, let's have that $15 commissary book.' At that moment, the other man, later identified by Shockley as Warren, stepped to Shockley's rear and against Shockley's will forcibly took from his right hip pocket two Missouri Penitentiary coupon books owned by him. In one of them were coupons of the value of fifty cents and in the other were coupons of the value of $4.50 at the prison commissary. After Warren had taken the books from Shockley's pocket, Hood asked Warren, 'Have you got it, Mac?' Warren replied, 'Yes.' Thereupon both Hood and Warren ran to Shockley's rear. Shockley started to run to the yardmaster's office and, in turning to the left, at the head of the steps, saw both defendants 'going out the back way from the men's latrine.' Upon arrival at the yardmaster's office, Shockley reported the robbery to the guards there on duty, Benjamin Scott and Rudolph Viet. At that instant, Shockley saw both defendants going 'away from the yardmaster's shack.' He pointed them out to the guards in the office and those officers started in pursuit of them. When defendants saw the officers approaching, they ran across the prison yard.
The weather on the day of the robbery was fair and mild, but it had rained the day before and the yard was very muddy. Warren was seen to run across the yard and through 'a bunch of men' and was captured as he came around the commissary. In running across the yard, his feet had thrown mud upon the back of his shirt. Viet saw Hood jam something into the ground as he ran across the yard and 'stomp it down' with his foot. Viet went to that place and there pulled a knife out of the ground. Herbert Elliott, a prison employee, who was 'on the yard' at the time of the episode, saw Hood and Warren as they ran across it and was able to and did recognize them. Elliott joined in the chase. Viet or Scott captured Hood. His clothing was also muddy. John Stieferman, a guard, was on duty at his station atop the clubhouse. He was well acquainted with Warren and knew Hood by name and sight. He saw Hood and Warren run across the muddy yard and 'split up' at the clubhouse, but thereafter kept both of them in sight at all times until both were captured. After their capture, Shockley positively identified both Hood and Warren as the men who had held him up.
In behalf of the defendants, Frank Deford and William Crouch, both inmates of the penitentiary on the date of the robbery, testified that defendant Hood was a good friend of theirs; that Hood was in their company and presence during the entire morning from shortly after breakfast until he was arrested; and that he could not have engaged in the robbery. Bob Capps, also an inmate of the penitentiary, testified in behalf of defendants that he knew defendant Warren, talked and visited with him that morning, and that Warren did not participate in the robbery. Ozell Shumate, also an inmate of the penitentiary, testified in behalf of defendants that he knew both Hood and Warren; that he witnessed the robbery of Shockley by two men, neither of whom was Hood or Warren. Loyal Francis Whitney, also an inmate of the penitentiary, testified in behalf of defendants that he and another inmate, whose name he refused to reveal, actually committed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Arney
...any prior convictions to affect the defendant's credibility. The prosecutor may elicit the general nature of each crime, State v. Hood, 313 S.W.2d 661, 663-64 (Mo.1958), as well as the places and dates of the occurrences and the resulting sentences. State v. Sullivan, 553 S.W.2d 510, 515 (M......
-
State v. Washington
...of robbery in the first degree. State v. Pope, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 564, 565-566; State v. Jackson, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 309, 310; State v. Hood, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 661, 663. The court did not err in failing to direct a verdict of Next the defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of th......
-
State v. Gratten
...for the appellant, their prior convictions 'may be proved to affect (their) credibility.' V.A.M.S. Sec. 491.050; State v. Hood, (Mo.) 313 S.W.2d 661, 663-664. In part the prosecuting attorney's argument was a plea for law enforcement and the prevention of crime, and in part it was retaliato......
-
State v. Malone, 50246
...v. Daegele, Mo.Sup., 302 S.W.2d 20; State v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 299 S.W.2d 468; State v. Jacobs, Mo.Sup., 321 S.W.2d 450; State v. Hood, Mo.Sup., 313 S.W.2d 661; State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 371 S.W.2d 309; State v. Gray, Mo.Sup., 360 S.W.2d 642; and State v. Velanti, Mo.Sup., 331 S.W.2d Our ......