State v. Kennedy

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Parties: THE STATE v. KENNEDY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

88 Mo. 341

THE STATE

v.KENNEDY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1885.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Robt. W. Goode for appellant.

If defendant is guilty of larceny it is only petit larceny, as the property lost was not worth over fifteen dollars, and the alleged larceny was not committed in a dwelling house, but in a car driver's room over a saloon. R. S., secs. 1297, 1309. The instruction in regard to possession of stolen property as presumptive evidence of guilt should have been given as offered by the defendant's counsel. That given by the trial court has been condemned by this tribunal more than once. State v. Bruin, 34 Mo. 540; State v. Gray, 37 Mo. 463; State v. Robbins, 65 Mo. 443; State v. Kelly, 73 Mo. 608; State v. Sidney, 74 Mo. 390.

B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.

It is admitted, on the part of the state, that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the charge of burglary. The charge of larceny was sufficiently established to justify the verdict. The larceny having been committed in a dwelling house, the value of the goods taken is immaterial. R. S., sec. 1309; State v. Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297; State v. Brown, Ib. 317; State v. Bruffey, 79 Mo. 389. The court of appeals was authorized in reversing as to the burglary, and affirming as to the larceny. State v. Alexander, 56 Mo. 131; State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 619.

NORTON, J.

Defendant was indicted in the criminal court of the city of St. Louis for burglary and larceny, committed in the dwelling house of one James Renn. He was tried and convicted of both burglary and larceny, and his punishment assessed at four years imprisonment for the burglary, and three years for the larceny. On defendant's appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals, the judgment was reversed as to the burlary and affirmed as to the larceny, and he brings the cause here by appeal.

It being conceded by the state that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of defendant for burglary, the only question for determination presented by the record is whether his conviction for grand larceny was proper, it being admitted that the coat he was convicted of stealing was of less value than thirty dollars. The evidence in the case shows that the larceny was committed in a dwelling house, and this being so, by virtue of section 1309, Revised Statutes, as construed by this court in the cases of State v. Brown, 75 Mo. 317, and State v. Butterfield, 75 Mo. 297, the offence is grand larceny, without reference to the value of the property stolen. The cases of State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 619, and State v. Alexander, 56 Mo. 131, fully warranted the action of the St. Louis court of appeals in reversing the judgment as to burglary and affirming it as to the larceny.

There being no evidence in the case as to the good character of the defendant, but on the contrary evidence...