State v. Mathis
| Decision Date | 06 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 25038.,25038. |
| Citation | 129 S.W.2d 20 |
| Parties | STATE v. MATHIS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; James W. Griffin, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Irene Mathis was convicted of petit larceny, and she appeals.
Reversed, and defendant discharged.
W. Jack Moore, of St. Louis, for appellant.
James P. Finnegan, Pros. Atty., and Maurice L. Mushlin, Associate Pros. Atty., both of St. Louis, for the State.
By an information filed in the Court of Criminal Correction of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Doris Argast and Irene Mathis (appellant) were jointly charged with petit larceny. Doris Argast pleaded guilty. Irene Mathis having pleaded not guilty was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury and found guilty and sentenced to serve thirty days in the workhouse of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and in due course appeals.
We need consider but one assignment of error, namely, that there was no substantial proof of guilt of the appellant. Our examination of the record brings us to the conclusion that the point is well taken.
On the afternoon of April 13, 1938, Irene Mathis, appellant, accompanied Doris Argast to the Famous-Barr Department Store and after having been in the jewelry and the millinery departments left the building. When they reached the nearest street corner a police officer, at the request of two women detectives of the department store company, took them back to the store. Two sergeants of police were then called in, resulting ultimately in an information being filed against each of the said women, charging them with petit larceny in having stolen one lady's hat valued at $1.88, and one lady's bracelet valued at $2.
The record discloses that at the trial defendant Irene Mathis was not represented by counsel. For the state one Jule Marquis testified that she was an employee of the May Department Store in the city of St. Louis; that on the afternoon of the day in question she saw Irene Mathis and Doris Argast in the jewelry department on the main floor of the store; that "Doris got a bracelet and put it in her purse and the two of them walked down through the hosiery, still on the main floor, and went to the millinery; and in the millinery Doris took off her hat and tried on hats and this other one (Irene Mathis, appellant) was with her, and she assisted her by looking around and watching while Doris put on the hat, and together they walked out the door, they walked out the Seventh street door, in the middle of the block, and walked to the corner of Locust where officer Doherty assisted Miss Bethman and myself to have Miss Argast and this young lady come back to the store." This witness further testified she had no conversation with either of the women.
Louise Bethman testified that she was in the employ of the department store as a house detective and was a co-worker of Miss Marquis; that she saw the two women in the jewelry department, where they remained ten or fifteen minutes; they then went to the millinery department where ; that she and Miss Marquis followed them and with the help of the police officer on the street corner they had the women returned to the office. She did not talk to Miss Mathis. She later heard Sergeant McLaughlin talk to her.
Harry McLaughlin testified that he was a sergeant in the Secret Service Division of the St. Louis Police Department; that he assisted in the arrest of Irene Mathis; that he talked to her at the time of the arrest and that "she denied taking anything but she said she was with the Argast girl but didn't see her get anything."
This is all the evidence offered by the state to sustain the issues in its behalf. The record discloses that the appellant thereupon took the stand and was questioned by counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Huff
... ... 243. (2) The court erred in refusing to give the ... defendant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer at ... the close of the whole case. State v. Emry, 18 ... S.W.2d 10; State v. Matticker, 22 S.W.2d 647; ... State v. Harris, 82 S.W.2d 877; State v ... Mathis, 129 S.W.2d 20. (3) The court erred by giving ... Instruction 1, because said instruction should have been ... divided and set out separately the question of former ... convictions and the question of burglary and larceny. (4) ... Said instruction required the jury to find the defendant ... ...
-
Teel v. May Department Stores Co.
... ... not guilty of the crime of false personation as (a) The ... element of criminal intent, or intent to defraud, was ... lacking; State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d ... 938, 103 A. L. R. 1301; 25 C. J. 577, 578; 2 Brill Cyclopedia ... of Criminal Law, sec. 1277, p. 1941; ... "aiding or abetting." State v. Odbur, 317 ... Mo. 372, 295 S.W. 734; State v. Mathis, 129 S.W.2d ... 20. (5) Even if Zytowski's imprisonment of the plaintiff ... were to be termed an "arrest" without warrant, it ... was illegal ... ...
-
State v. Holloway
... ... S.W.2d 712. (8) The court did not err in refusing Instruction ... 9 offered by defendant. State v. Garth, 164 Mo. 553, ... 65 S.W. 275; State v. Soper, 148 Mo. 217, 49 S.W ... 1007; State v. Batey, 62 S.W.2d 450; State v ... Bobbitt, 242 Mo. 273, 146 S.W. 799; State v ... Mathis, 129 S.W.2d 20; State v. Bresse, 326 Mo ... 885, 33 S.W.2d 919; State v. Odbur, 317 Mo. 372, 295 ... S.W. 734; State v. Bobbitt, 228 Mo. 252, 128 S.W ... 953. (9) The court did not err in refusing Instruction No. 8 ... offered by defendant. Sec. 4070, R.S. 1939; State v ... Yates, 252 S.W ... ...
-
State v. Deyo
...of a crime, is guilty.' Appellant's cases are State v. Larkin, 250 Mo. 218, 157 S.W. 600, 603[2, 3], 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 13; State v. Mathis, Mo.App., 129 S.W.2d 20, 22; State v. Thompson, 293 Mo. 116, 238 S.W. 786. In the Larkin case, closest in point of fact to the case at bar, one Harris wor......