State v. Mathis

Decision Date10 February 1964
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 50136,50136,2
Citation375 S.W.2d 196
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Montie Leon MATHIS, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Richard F. Adams, Kansas City, for appellant.

Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Chitwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

Montie Leon Mathis was found guilty by a jury of burglary, second degree, and after finding that he had previously been convicted and sentenced for the offense of stealing a motor vehicle, as alleged in the amended information, punishment was fixed by the trial judge at imprisonment for eight years. Sentence and judgment followed and defendant has appealed to this court.

In his brief defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the commission by him of a crime for which he was not charged. This is the only assignment of error in his motion for new trial.

Defendant was charged by amended information with burglary, second degree, in that on August 29, 1962, he broke into and entered 'the storeroom of the Rapid Auto Sales, a corporation, located at 1210 Truman Road, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri,' and with stealing. The jury found the defendant not guilty of stealing but guilty of the burglary.

The jury could reasonably find from the evidence that shortly after midnight of August 29, 1962, a member of the Kansas City Police found the defendant sitting in a Buick automobile with the engine running, and which was parked on the used car lot of Texas Traders Auto Sales located at 1401 Truman Road. Defendant had in his possession a 'rubber stamp' which contained the address of 1210 Truman Road and was the kind used to 'stamp * * * envelopes and papers.' An investigation disclosed that the storeroom of the Rapid Auto Sales located at 1210 Truman Road had been broken into. A window was broken out, a door pried open, a desk in the storeroom had the drawers pulled open and the papers inside the drawers scattered around. Tools of the value of $10.00 were missing. Fingerprints found on pieces of glass from the broken window matched those of defendant.

The arresting officer testified that defendant told him that his automobile had broken down and 'they' had picked it up to repair it and he had gone 'down there,' apparently to Texas Traders Auto Sales, to see if it was ready, and while there he was 'trying the engine' on the Buick car. The officer then testified that he 'checked the area' and the office building on the used car lot 'had been broken into.' No objection was made to this. He was then asked the color of the paint on the building which had been broken into, and counsel for defendant objected on the ground that defendant was charged with breaking into a building at 1201 Truman Road, and he objected to testimony as to the color of the paint on 'the building at 1400 [sic] Truman Road' because it 'is irrelevant of this crime.' This objection was sustained and the jury was instructed to 'disregard the last answer,' which was that 'the office building on the lot at 1401 Truman Road had been broken into.' Subsequently, a second police officer, who had been called by the arresting officer, testified without objection that he had 'checked the building at 1401 Truman Road.' He did not testify as to what he found. Later this officer was asked whether he talked to the defendant and what he had said. He gave this answer: 'Well, he told me that he was at the lot on 1401 Truman Road, for the purpose of checking on the transmission and repair of his automobile, and he was in this car that he was found in for--he wanted to try the motor on it is what he said, and at the time of his arrest, some yellowish paint was on his hand, which, in color matched the paint on the building at 1401 Truman Road.' Defense counsel objected to 'this rambling narrative' because it was not responsive, and 'further that the testimony in regard to the yellow paint connecting up this building at 1401 Truman Road is completely prejudicial and I ask that the jury be discharged at this time.' Both the motion to discharge the jury and the objection to the testimony were overruled. The prosecuting attorney then asked this question: 'Now, you say that there was paint on him and it matched the building at 1410 (sic) Truman Road?' and the witness replied, '1401 Truman Road.' On cross-examination defense counsel developed that there were two buildings at the used car lot as 1401 Truman Road, and that defendant's automobile, a Studebaker, was parked near a concrete building with a green door, and that the 'yellow building' was 'roughly fifty feet' west of the concrete building and that it had been 'painted soon before.' He also asked questions which had the purpose of showing that when defendant walked from his Studebaker to the Buick he would pass by the yellow building, but the witness answered to the effect that the yellow building was not in line with the two automobiles. On redirect examination, this witness testified without objection that the office building was 'yellowish green,' and that he observed paint of 'a similar color' on defendant's hand. Then in response to the question as to whether the witness noticed 'anything...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Hamell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 18, 1977
    ...the defendant in bombings and other criminal activities not charged in the indictment for first degree murder. In State v. Mathis, 375 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.1964), the Missouri Supreme Court held the admission of evidence of a nearby burglary in the trial of defendant for another burglary was prej......
  • State v. Dees
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 23, 1982
    ...apartment where the full imprint of the foot was found. As authority on this point defendant primarily relies on State v. Mathis, 375 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.1964) and State v. Strickland, 530 S.W.2d 736 (Mo.App.1975). Neither are controlling here. In Mathis evidence of another burglary was not cons......
  • State v. Tash
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1975
    ...theft of the other dog becomes admissible to show common scheme and design. The cases cited by the defendant, typified by State v. Mathis, 375 S.W.2d 196 (Mo.1964), can be distinguished by the absence of any facts in those cases which tended to connect or interrelate the offenses themselves......
  • State v. Gray
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1972
    ...killing of Deputy Phillips occurred. The argument is that this is evidence of a separate offense and therefore not admissible. State v. Mathis, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 196. Appellant also argues that this had a damaging effect in his trial for killing Deputy Phillips because he was later acquitted ......
  • 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