State v. Hoskins
| Decision Date | 25 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30920 |
| Citation | 36 S.W.2d 909,327 Mo. 313 |
| Parties | The State v. Walter Hoskins, alias Walter Phillips, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court; Hon. J. V. Gaddy Judge.
Affirmed.
S. P Davisson for appellant.
(1) If the grand jury in doing something in its investigation that is unlawful in finding an indictment against a person accused of a crime, then the action of the prosecuting attorney who commits the same act in his investigation of the evidence against a person who is charged with committing a crime would also be unlawful. The court erred in not sustaining his plea in abatement. State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398; State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 611. No other conclusion can be drawn than that the police detectives took the appellant to the police prison for no other purpose than to secure from appellant a confession, or at least investigate the case to find out from the appellant himself whether or not he was guilty of the crime under investigation. During all the time from the date of the filing of the complaint of the prosecuting attorney until the appellant waived preliminary trial, the case was under investigation just as much so as if the grand jury had the same under consideration. The witness is not a willing witness if there is any constraint put upon him by officer or agency of the law. State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 433. (2) Over his objection the court admitted the evidence of the Chief of Detectives Duncan and his assistants, Farrell and Hill. The record shows that they knew nothing of the facts that would prove the defendant guilty except the evidence they secured from this defendant. This defendant was under constraint when he made the confession. He was under the direct control of the officers of the law who arrested him, and no confession is voluntary when made under constraint.
Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and A. B. Lovan, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) The record shows that there were no threats made by the officers against the defendant and that there was no ill treatment whatever. It was proper for the officers to hear the statements of the defendant. It was not error to admit the testimony of the officers as to the statements made by the defendant. The following authorities support this position: State v. Daly, 210 Mo. 676; State v. Prunty, 276 Mo. 376; State v. Turner, 274 S.W. 36. A confession is presumed to be voluntary unless the contrary is shown. State v. Armstrong, 203 Mo. 559. (2) "The independent evidence of the corpus delicti need not of itself be full and conclusive or sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt, as the confession may be considered with the facts and circumstances in evidence in determining whether the corpus delicti is established." 16 C. J. 736; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 712; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 177; State v. Skibiski, 245 Mo. 463; State v. Bickel, 177 S.W. 313.
Davis, C. Cooley and Westhues, CC., concur.
In a verified information filed in the Circuit Court of Buchanan County by the prosecuting attorney, the defendant was charged with grand larceny. Tried to a jury, he was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at twelve years in the penitentiary. He appealed.
The facts are simple. They warrant, on the part of the State, the finding that, on February 7, 1930, in the city of St. Joseph Buchanan County, Dr. Roger Moore, the owner of a Dodge Senior Six sedan automobile, about nine A. M. on said day, parked it on the street in proximity to the Missouri Methodist Hospital, which he then entered to practice his profession. On leaving the hospital around eleven A. M. on said day, he was unable to discover his automobile, as it had been driven away. In a day or two it was discovered parked on another street in St. Joseph. It had not only been driven a number of miles, but it had been stripped of spare wheels, tires and tire covers. These accessories and parts were found later on a lot on Third Street in the city of St. Joseph.
Defendant contends that his confession was the only evidence adduced tending to connect him with the larceny of Dr. Moore's automobile. While the exactness of this contention is doubtful, we will so treat it.
The evidence tends to show that defendant was arrested, relative to the theft of said automobile, by officers Hill and Farrell on February 15, 1930, and taken to the police station. He was then conducted to the office of the chief of detectives, where, upon interrogation by the police officers, he stated that he and one Stufflebean took an automobile belonging to Dr. Moore, parked near the Missouri Methodist Hospital, drove it away and stripped it of two wheels, including tires and tire covers, which they threw over a stone wall. Later they recovered the accessories and tried to sell them, but, becoming apprehensive, they threw and abandoned them on a lot on South Third Street. It seems that a man by the name of Farris was also implicated. At first defendant denied any connection with the theft, but thinking the other two had given information implicating him, he then admitted his connection therewith. On cross-examination and inquiry a State's witness, a police officer, said that defendant also admitted that he and Stufflebean had stolen a Ford car, stripped it and sold the parts, some of which were recovered on information furnished by defendant. The next day defendant was again interviewed by the police officers and the prosecuting attorney, and he related the same story. The automobile, wheels and tires were recovered by the police on information given by defendant. The automobile was valued at $ 1800, and the wheels, tires and tire casings complete at $ 50 each. They found the keys to Dr. Moore's automobile in defendant's room, and defendant identified them. The keys unlocked the ignition and tire locks.
Defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted that he was sentenced to the Reform School in Kansas for burglary for ten years, but that he was paroled to his mother after a confinement of eighteen months. Defendant admitted that he told the police officers that he had stolen four cars, among them Dr. Moore's car, but he stated that his statement was false and that he did not steal the cars. The officers did not advise him of his rights under the law. Defendant said he was protecting Farris when he told the officers that he was the one that had stolen the cars.
The record shows that defendant filed a plea in abatement to the information filed against him on May 1, 1930, which plea averred, in substance, that the interrogation of defendant by the police officers and prosecuting attorney, after his arrest and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
... ... Mo. 1033, 151 S.W.2d 1105. (3) Allocution, judgment and ... sentence are in proper form and comply with the statutes ... Sec. 4456, R.S. 1939. (4) There is sufficient evidence to ... support a verdict of guilty of grand larceny. State v ... Hawkins, 165 S.W.2d 644; State v. Hoskins, 327 ... Mo. 313, 36 S.W.2d 909; State v. Lyle, 353 Mo. 386, ... 182 S.W.2d 530; State v. Hubbard, 351 Mo. 143, 171 ... S.W.2d 701; State v. Pillow, 169 S.W.2d 414; ... State v. Vaughan, 152 Mo. 73, 53 S.W. 420; State ... v. Moore, 117 Mo. 395, 22 S.W. 1086; Satte v ... Pippin, 209 S.W.2d ... ...
-
State v. Higdon
...State v. Ellis, 193 S.W.2d 31; State v. Clark, 147 Mo. 38, 47 S.W. 886; State v. Butts, 349 Mo. 213, 158 S.W.2d 790; State v. Haskins, 327 Mo. 313, 36 S.W.2d 909; State v. Mitchell, 339 Mo. 228, 96 S.W.2d State v. Menz, 341 Mo. 74, 106 S.W.2d 440; State v. Reed, 154 Mo. 129, 55 S.W. 278; Ly......
-
State v. Thomas
... ... Guenther, 169 S.W.2d 403; State v. Kaner, 93 ... S.W.2d 671; State v. Smith, 68 S.W.2d 696; State ... v. Thomas, 82 S.W.2d 885. (2) The court did not err in ... permitting Arnold J. Willmann, Sheriff, to testify as to ... statements made by the appellant. State v. Hoskins, ... 36 S.W.2d 909; State v. Mitchell, 96 S.W.2d 341; ... State v. Todd, 116 S.W.2d 113; State v ... Turner, 274 S.W. 35. (3) The court did not err in ... overruling the appellant's demurrer to the evidence ... offered at the close of state's case. State v ... Bigley, 247 S.W. 169; ... ...
-
Teel v. May Department Stores Co.
...the jury. State v. Menz, 106 S.W.2d 440; State v. Arndt, 143 S.W.2d 286; State v. Christup, 337 Mo. 776, 85 S.W.2d 1024; State v. Hoskins, 327 Mo. 313, 36 S.W.2d 909. The statement signed by Leona Teel, defendants' Exhibit B, in plaintiff's presence and at her suggestion, was properly admit......