State v. Lord, No. 44992

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation286 S.W.2d 737
Decision Date13 February 1956
Docket NumberNo. 44992,No. 2
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Margaret Irene LORD, Appellant

Page 737

286 S.W.2d 737
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Margaret Irene LORD, Appellant.
No. 44992.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
Feb. 13, 1956.

Page 739

Grace S. Day, St. Joseph, for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Fred L. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Defendant Margaret Irene Lord was found guilty of grand larceny and her punishment assessed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. From the ensuing judgment and sentence she has appealed.

On August 19, 1954, about 11:30 a. m., defendant and a companion entered the Red Clock Tavern in Buchanan County, Missouri. Ruby Moore and Fannie May Curry, the owners of the tavern, and defendant and her companion were the only persons present. A short time earlier Ruby Moore had counted the money in her purse, which was more than $226, and had then left the purse on one of the tables. After defendant had been in the tavern a few minutes she asked how to reach the rest room, and following directions, she left the tavern. Shortly thereafter the attendant of a nearby filling station brought Ruby Moore's purse to her and told her he had found it in the rest room. The purse then contained only three silver dollars and some small change. Ruby Moore located defendant in a nearby liquor store and she was arrested by a member of the Missouri State Highway Patrol. During the trial, defendant's purse and the contents thereof were admitted in evidence and Ruby Moore identified the money taken from defendant's purse as the money she had counted and placed in her purse a short time before

Page 740

defendant entered the tavern. In addition, there was admitted in evidence a pink slip of paper found in the purse of defendant on which there was written a number. Ruby Moore identified this slip of paper as the one that was in her purse with her money, and it was otherwise established that the number written thereon was the number of a prescription issued by a doctor for Ruby Moore's mother and filled at one of the local drug stores.

Defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal and assigns as error the overruling of this motion. When we accept as true the evidence offered by the State and when we take into consideration the favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom, as we are required to do in determining whether the court erred in denying this motion, State v. McBrayer, Mo.Sup., 269 S.W.2d 756; State v. Sheard, Mo.Sup., 276 S.W.2d 196; it is clear that the State's evidence was sufficient and substantial to support a verdict that defendant was guilty of the crime charged. The court did not err in refusing to enter a judgment of acquittal.

Defendant also assigns as error the refusal of the court to grant a continuance and to appoint additional defense counsel. The record shows that in a previous trial, which had resulted in a hung jury, defendant was represented by two court appointed attorneys, one of which was the attorney representing defendant in the present trial. Subsequent to the first trial, the other attorney became a magistrate judge and was ineligible to participate in the defense of defendant on the second trial. Art. V, Section 24, Const. of Mo. 1945, 2 V.A.M.S. Section 545.820 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., authorizes and directs the trial court to assign defense counsel 'not exceeding two' when the defendant is without counsel of his own choice and is unable to employ counsel. See also 42 V.A.M.S. Supreme Court Rule 29.01. But there is no requirement that a person charged with a crime be provided with more than one defense attorney. Whether the court should appoint one or two attorneys to represent a person charged with a crime is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. In this case the request for the appointment of additional counsel was not made until the morning of the trial, although it was known or should have been known for over three months that co-counsel in the first trial could not participate in the second trial. The trial court was acquainted with the experience and ability of the defense counsel, and it knew that defendant's counsel in the present trial was familiar with the case by reason of having participated in the first trial. The record does not disclose that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing at the time requested to grant a continuance and to appoint additional defense counsel.

One of the assignments in defendant's motion for new trial is that 'the court erred in admitting evidence which was obtained by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • White v. Swenson, No. 1347.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • May 2, 1969
    ...Although apparently reluctant to do so (see that court's citation of the pre-Mapp case of State v. Lord, (Mo.Sup.Ct., Div. 2, 1956) 286 S.W.2d 737, which, in reliance upon the rule of Hepperman discussed in footnote 5, refused to reach the merits of a search and seizure question) the Suprem......
  • State v. Gilmore, No. WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1990
    ...by the offending witness. Rather, exclusion Page 807 of the testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Lord, 286 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Mo.1956), which will generally be exercised only where the violation of "the rule" occurs under special circumstances. See United St......
  • State v. Caffey, Nos. 49364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 14, 1970
    ...of trial. State v. O'Brien, Mo., 252 S.W.2d 357, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 929, 73 S.Ct. 790, 97 .l.Ed. 1359; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737; State v. Holt, (Mo., 415 S.W.2d 761) supra. The validity of a search and the admissibility in evidence of the fruits of that search present iss......
  • State v. Paglino, No. 46219
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1958
    ...made in the trial court. State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 50; State v. Miller, 364 Mo. 320, 261 S.W.2d 103; State v. Lord, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 737; Supreme Court Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S. The reason for this rule is obvious. A trial court should not be convicted of improperly admitting evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
49 cases
  • White v. Swenson, No. 1347.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • May 2, 1969
    ...Although apparently reluctant to do so (see that court's citation of the pre-Mapp case of State v. Lord, (Mo.Sup.Ct., Div. 2, 1956) 286 S.W.2d 737, which, in reliance upon the rule of Hepperman discussed in footnote 5, refused to reach the merits of a search and seizure question) the Suprem......
  • State v. Gilmore, No. WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 11, 1990
    ...by the offending witness. Rather, exclusion Page 807 of the testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, State v. Lord, 286 S.W.2d 737, 741 (Mo.1956), which will generally be exercised only where the violation of "the rule" occurs under special circumstances. See United St......
  • State v. Caffey, Nos. 49364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 14, 1970
    ...of trial. State v. O'Brien, Mo., 252 S.W.2d 357, certiorari denied, 345 U.S. 929, 73 S.Ct. 790, 97 .l.Ed. 1359; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737; State v. Holt, (Mo., 415 S.W.2d 761) supra. The validity of a search and the admissibility in evidence of the fruits of that search present iss......
  • State v. Paglino, No. 46219
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 8, 1958
    ...made in the trial court. State v. Smith, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 50; State v. Miller, 364 Mo. 320, 261 S.W.2d 103; State v. Lord, Mo.Sup., 286 S.W.2d 737; Supreme Court Rule 27.20, 42 V.A.M.S. The reason for this rule is obvious. A trial court should not be convicted of improperly admitting evi......
  • 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