State v. McGuire

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: State v. McGuire, 87 Mo. 642 (Mo. 1885)
• Parties: THE STATE v. MCGUIRE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

87 Mo. 642

THE STATE

v.MCGUIRE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1885.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

AFFIRMED.

R. W. Goode for appellant.

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

NORTON, J.

The defendant was indicted and tried in the criminal court of the city of St. Louis for burglary and larceny. He was convicted of the burglary and acquitted of the larceny, and sentenced to three years imprisonment in the penitentiary. This judgment was on his appeal to the St. Louis court of appeals affirmed, from which he appeals to this court. Not being favored with a brief from counsel for defendant we have examined the record for the discovery of reversible error, and find that it discloses no such error. The chief error assigned in the motion for new trial is the alleged admission of improper and the rejection of proper evidence. Defendant was introduced as a witness in his own behalf, and the state in rebuttal and for the purpose of impeachment offered the record of conviction of Michael McGuire in 1873 for grand larceny, and the judgment of the court assessing his punishment at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary; this was objected to on the ground that defendant was not otherwise identified as being the same person convicted. The objection was properly overruled on the authority of the cases of State v. Moore, 61 Mo. 276; Gitt v. Watson, 18 Mo. 274, and Flournoy v. Warden, 17 Mo. 435, in which it is held: That the names being identical, prima facie they are the same person, and it rests with plaintiff to show they are not the same. The court refused to allow defendant to offer in evidence the memorandum blotter of the central district police station of May 14, 1884, showing the arrest of one Michael McGuire for petit larceny, and his delivery to the sheriff of the city. We cannot conceive upon what grounds this evidence could have been admitted. It had nothing to do with the case except to prejudice the...