State v. Levikow
| Decision Date | 02 February 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 19987.,19987. |
| Citation | 192 S.W. 416 |
| Parties | STATE v. LEVIKOW. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
Jake Levikow was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Harry Friedberg and J. Francis O'Sullivan, both of Kansas City, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and W. T. Rutherford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county on the charge of receiving stolen property, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years. After the usual motions he has appealed.
In the view which we are compelled to take of this case it will subserve no useful purpose to cumber the reports with a statement of the facts constituting the alleged offense as the record discloses them. For the Attorney General is candid enough to confess error in this case, for that, though the charge is receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, there is no proof in the record of the corporate character of the alleged corporation from which the goods were stolen. The indictment charges that the goods alleged to have been feloniously received by defendant had been theretofore stolen from the Riley-Wilson Grocery Company, a corporation. But there is no proof whatever in the record that said Riley-Wilson Grocery Company was such corporation, either de jure or de facto. For this failure of proof this case must be reversed and remanded.
We have gone recently over this identical point with much care, and, following the ancient landmarks, have been compelled to hold that such failure of proof constitutes reversible error. State v. Henschel, 250 Mo. 263, 157 S. W. 311; State v. Winer, 263 Mo. loc. cit. 359, 172 S. W. 355; State v. Jones, 168 Mo. 398, 68 S. W. 506; State v. Horned, 178 Mo. 59, 76 S. W. 953. In the Winer Case, supra, at the page cited, we very lately took occasion to say:
It is fundamental that to sustain the charge of receiving stolen goods the proof must show that the goods alleged to have been received were in fact stolen. In order to show that the goods were stolen it is manifest that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marston v. Catterlin
... ... might claim under the grantor ... The ... general rule in this State is as follows: "A ... grantee in a recorded quit-claim deed for value who ... has no actual notice holds a good title against a prior ... ...
-
The State v. Duddrear
...interest therein. These failures of proof constitute reversible errors, and have been so ruled several times by this court. In State v. Levikow, 192 S.W. 416, we held that where indictment charged that the defendant feloniously received goods stolen from a corporation, the conviction cannot......
-
Marston v. Catterlin
... ... The general rule in this state is as follows: ... "A grantee in a recorded quitclaim deed for value who has no actual notice holds a good title against a prior ... ...
-
State v. Thomas
... ... evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. State ... v. Morney, 93 S.W. 1117; State v. Boswell, 133 ... S.W. 99; State v. Long, 278 Mo. 379; State v ... Bowman, 243 S.W. 110; State v. James, 113 S.W ... 232; State v. Lee, 182 S.W. 972; State v ... Levikow, 192 S.W. 416; State v. Lawler, 130 Mo ... 366; 1 Wharton, Criminal Law (9 Ed.) p. 932. (2) The State ... failed to prove larceny, for the reason that the property ... alleged to have been taken was not taken against the will of ... the alleged owner. State v. James, 113 S.W. 232; ... State ... ...