State v. Johnson
Decision Date | 19 October 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 32707.,32707. |
Citation | 63 S.W.2d 1000 |
Parties | THE STATE v. F.W. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. — Hon. H.A. Collier, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, and Franklin E. Reagan, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) Instruction 4 relating to admissions of defendant was in proper form. State v. Sattley, 131 Mo. 490; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 176; State v. Hayes, 262 S.W. 1034. Instruction 5 relating to the credibility of witnesses is in proper form. State v. Knost, 207 Mo. 18; State v. Hart, 56 S.W. (2d) 592; State v. Hamilton, 263 S.W. 130. (2) Proof of the forger's identity is not necessary to sustain a charge of uttering a forged instrument. State v. Thompson, supra.
We have adopted, with slight modifications the following statement of the case, found in the State's brief:
Appellant has not filed a brief in this court. We will look to the motion for new trial for points preserved for our review.
[1] A number of the assignments of error pertain to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The above statement of facts reveals that the evidence in the record was sufficient for the jury to find appellant guilty of uttering a forged instrument with intent to defraud, as denounced by Section 4183, Revised Statutes 1929. [State v. Thompson, 1 S.W. (2d) 151, 318 Mo. 623.]
[2] Instruction No. 4 is assailed. It reads as follows:
The specific objection made to this instruction is that it failed to inform the jury that defendant was entitled to what he said for himself, if true, and also failed to require the jury to consider the whole of any statement or statements made by defendant. The objection is well taken. In the State's brief the cases of State v. Sattley, 131 Mo. 464, l.c. 490, 33 S.W. 41; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. l.c. 176, 83 S.W. 1083; State v. Hayes, 262 S.W. 1034, are cited as authorities...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bartley
... ... Bell, 111 S.W. 24; State v. Witherspoon, 133 ... S.W. 323; State v. Pearson, 270 S.W. 347; Ex parte ... Gauss, 122 S.W. 741; Ex parte Carter, 66 S.W. 540; Ex parte ... Buskett, 17 S.W. 753; Ex parte January, 246 S.W. 241; ... Dobbs v. State, 113 S.W. 921, 54 Tex. Cr. Rep. 579; ... Johnson v. State, 148 S.W. 328, 66 Tex. Cr. Rep ... 586; Bobbs v. State, 205 S.W. 135; Watt v ... State, 235 S.W. 888; People v. Moore, 65 How ... Pr. 177; State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 611, 75 S.W ... 137. (3) The court erred in refusing to give defendant's ... Instruction 2, in the nature of a ... ...
-
State v. Gibilterra
... ... interest, declaring that what the defendant said against ... himself the law presumes to be true. In these the adjective ... "voluntary" or the adverb "voluntarily" ... was inserted or omitted. [ 7 ] All such instructions are now held ... to be erroneous. [ State v. Johnson, 333 Mo. 1008, ... 1013, 63 S.W.2d 1000, 1003; State v. Duncan, 336 Mo ... 600, 612(6), 80 S.W.2d 147, 153(15); State v ... Hancock, 340 Mo. 918, 925 (5), 104 S.W.2d 241, 246(6).] ... Also, ... in a few cases the word "voluntary" is defined as ... meaning ... ...
-
State v. Phillips
...by him. Instructions stating such a presumption were condemned in State v. Dollarhide, 333 Mo. 1087, 63 S.W.2d 998 and State v. Johnson, 333 Mo. 1008, 63 S.W.2d 1000. These opinions of Division Two were transferred to and adopted by the Court en Banc because of previous decisions in which s......
-
State v. Busch
..."That the jury must consider such statements altogether. The defendant is entitled to what he said for himself, if true." State v. Johnson, 63 S.W.2d 1000, 333 Mo. 1008; State v. Hamilton, 263 S.W. 131, 304 Mo. State v. Bartley, 84 S.W.2d 640, 337 Mo. 229; State v. Duncan, 80 S.W.2d 153, 33......