State v. Keck

Decision Date10 May 1965
Docket NumberNo. 50784,No. 2,50784,2
Citation389 S.W.2d 816
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gertrude Blacketer KECK, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Henry S. Stolar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.

Emmett L. Bartram, Maryville, for appellant.

PRITCHARD, Commissioner.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of stealing hogs. Her punishment was assessed at one year in the county jail 'subject to parole or probation at six months for good behavior.' We have appellate jurisdiction because the crime charged of stealing hogs, regardless of their value, is a felony under Sec. 560.161 subd. 2(3), RSMo 1959, V. A.M.S.Const.Mo.1945, Art. V, Sec. 3 V.A.M.S.

Defendant questions the submissibility of the state's case. No motion for judgment of acquittal was made by defendant at the close of all of the evidence. Even so, we look to the record to ascertain if there was any substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. Burnett, 365 Mo. 1060, 293 S.W.2d 335, 339. In so doing, we consider the evidence and favorable inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Watson, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 763, 766.

The facts are these: On July 6, 1962, Bill Coston owned some hogs located two miles east and two miles north of Skidmore, in Nodaway County, Missouri. On that day he learned that two hogs were missing--'Hamp' gilts, with V-notches in the top of their left ears, with bobbed tails, and weighing 185 to 200 pounds. A hole was cut out in the fence of the lot where the hogs were kept. Bill later saw one of the hogs at 'Skeeter' Brown' sale barn in Bedford, Iowa, and positively identified it. He gave no one permission to take the hogs.

The hogs on Bill's farm were fed and cared for by his father, Frank Coston. Frank counted them every time that he fed them, and discovered the missing hogs about five o'clock on the morning of July 6 or 7. He later saw one of the missing hogs at 'Skeeter' Brown's sale barn, and found another three or four miles east of Bedford, Iowa. Frank identified the hogs as the property of his son, Bill.

Rex Freeze was with defendant, her husband, Sterling, and with two of the her children on July 5, 1962, in College Springs, Iowa. The group went on that day to defendant's home at Ellwood, Kansas. Defendant and her husband told Freeze that they were a little hard up and they discussed going after some hogs. Defendant stated that she knew that some hogs could be gotten at the Coston farm. That night they went to the Coston farm but did not take any hogs. The following night, they returned to the farm in Freeze's car, the back seat of which had been removed. Upon arrival, feed was scattered in the lot and the hogs were caught with a rope. Defendant and Freeze cut a hole in the lot fence with wire cutters which had been purchased by defendant's husband, and the hogs were removed through the hole, driven to a ditch beside the car and loaded therein. They then drove to New Market where they were unable to sell the hogs, so they were placed in a pen. At that time defendant was sitting in the car. A pickup truck was then hired from Tony Pace, and the hogs were hauled to 'Skeeter' Brown's sale barn at Bedford, Iowa, where they were sold for $59.90, Freeze doing the negotiating with Brown. Defendant, her husband and Freeze lfet Bedford and came to Maryville, Missouri, where Freeze cashed the check and gave defendant and her husband half of it.

Deputy Sheriff Carl O. Mackey of Holt County was permitted to testify, over objection, that defendant made an oral statement to him about the crime. The ground of the objection was that defendant was not advised by Mackey that any remarks she made could be used against her. The statement was made on April 13, 1963, in the Sheriff's office in Holt County where defendant was on another charge of petty stealing, about which Mackey was going to question defendant. He suggested to her that she tell him if she stole anything else, but he did not know anything about the Coston theft at that time. He did not advise her that what she said could be used against her. Thereupon, defendant related to Mackey, spontaneously, unsolicited and voluntarily, that on July 6, 1962, her husband and Freeze told her they were going to steal some hogs and that she was to do the driving. Her clothesline was taken to tie the hogs, and she drove the car to Nodaway County, parked at the foot of a hill and kept the motor running. Her husband and Freeze got out, told her to keep the door open and motor running, and returned 10 or 15 minutes later each carrying a hog, which hogs were put in the back seat. They drove to a stockyards where they were unable to sell the hogs, so they hired an old gentleman and his grandson to take the hogs to Bedford, Iowa. Freeze sold the hogs there for $67.00, after which they went to Maryville and cashed the check.

Under the above evidence, the state made a submissible case upon defendant's participation in the hog theft. This point (No. 7) is ruled against defendant.

With respect to the admissibility of defendant's statement to Deputy Sheriff Mackey, the evidence is further that defendant told him in the Magistrate Court of Holt County that she wanted to clear up everything. 'She wanted to get right.' 'She wanted to take care of her family.' Mackey then told her, 'Let's go up to the office and you can tell me about it.' Upon arrival at the office, defendant started to tell him about the hog stealing. He put no questions to her. Under these circumstances the statement was not inadmissible. Defendant was not coerced; she was not promised anything; there was no physical abuse, or a long interrogation or a holding of her incommunicado by the Sheriff. The mere fact that defendant was not advised that her statement could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Danforth
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 29 Marzo 1983
    ...S.W.2d 133 (Mo.1964). The jury's determination of the facts based on conflicting testimony must be accepted by this court. State v. Keck, 389 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.1965). The facts of this case, consistent with the jury's verdict, are as follows. In July, 1979 Loretta Danforth (then Loretta Olliso......
  • State v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 9 Septiembre 1968
    ...§ 2098; United States v. Stirone, 311 F.2d 277 (3d Cir. 1962); People v. Gomez, 215 Cal.App.2d 314, 30 Cal.Rptr. 139; State v. Keck, 389 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.1965); Contra, Ferguson v. State, 218 Ga. 173, 126 S.E.2d Following the imposition of sentence, and within ten days, defendant filed a moti......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1968
    ...these circumstances it is clear that the Court was not in error in failing to give one. State v. Harris, Mo., 356 S.W.2d 889; State v. Keck, Mo., 389 S.W.2d 816; State v. Westfall, Mo., 367 S.W.2d 593; State v. Johnson, Mo., 234 S.W.2d 219; State v. Hutchin, Mo., 353 S.W.2d 701; State v. Fi......
  • State v. Graham
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 9 Septiembre 1975
    ...and their previous verdict was accepted with the trial court treating the recommendation for probation as surplusage. State v. Keck, 389 S.W.2d 816, 819(8) (Mo.1965). However, when the jury was polled one of the jurors stated that the verdict was not his and the jury was again returned to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT