State v. Hubbard

• Decision Date: 05 March 1907
• Citation: 201 Mo. 639,100 S.W. 586
• Parties: STATE v. HUBBARD.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

100 S.W. 586

201 Mo. 639

STATE v. HUBBARD.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 5, 1907.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—GROUNDS OF REVIEW —EXCEPTIONS.

Rulings on evidence in a criminal case cannot be reviewed on appeal, where timely exceptions are not taken in the trial court.

2. SAME—TRIAL—CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES —QUESTION FOR JURY.

The credibility of a witness who has served a term in the penitentiary is for the jury.

3. SAME—DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE—FOUNDATION.

Where the half-brother of accused testified that accused had sent certain letters, and that accused had admitted sending them, there was a sufficient foundation laid for the admission of the letters.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; John Wofford, Judge.

Charles Hubbard, alias Al Miner, was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is now pending before this court upon an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the criminal court of Jackson county for grand larceny. On June 2, 1905, the prosecuting attorney of Jackson county filed an information against the defendant, Charles Hubbard, alias Al Miner, charging him with having committed grand larceny in September, 1904, in Jackson county, Mo., the specific allegation being that he stole two gray mares of the value of $200, the property of Emanuel Landis, a Kansas City liveryman. After being duly arraigned, a trial was had on the 4th day of April, 1906. The state introduced numerous witnesses upon the trial of this cause, and the testimony of such witnesses tended very strongly to identify the defendant as the man who committed the larceny charged in the information. We deem it unnecessary to set out in detail the testimony of the various witnesses, but it is sufficient to say that the testimony introduced by the state satisfactorily pointed to the guilt of the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant introduced numerous witnesses which tended to establish an alibi, which was the defense interposed in this case. We will treat further of the testimony in this cause during the course of the opinion. At the close of the evidence, the court fully instructed the jury upon every phase of the case to which the testimony was applicable. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty as charged, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary at a term of six years. Timely motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and by the court overruled. Sentence and judgment followed in conformity to the verdict, and from this judgment the defendant prosecuted this appeal, and the cause is now before us for review.

John Newburn and Douglas & Watson, for appellant. The Attorney General and Frank Blake, for the State.

FOX, P. J. (after stating the facts).

The appellant is not represented in this court. Therefore, in obedience to the...