State v. Meadows
| Decision Date | 14 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 32346.,32346. |
| Citation | 55 S.W.2d 959 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ROY MEADOWS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. — Hon. Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Harvey D. Dow for appellant.
Stratlon Shartel, Attorney-General, and Don Purteet, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
Appellant was charged by information filed in the Circuit Court of Pettis County with the crimes of burglary and larceny of personal property to the value of $275 from the dwelling house of one Margaret Mansfield. The information also invoked against appellant the habitual criminal act by alleging two prior convictions of appellant on felony charges, his imprisonment in the Missouri State Penitentiary and his discharge therefrom. Upon trial the jury returned the following verdict:
Appellant's motion for a new trial having been overruled, the court entered judgment reciting that appellant had been "found guilty of the crime of burglary and larceny, as charged in the information herein, and his punishment fixed at ten (10) years imprisonment in the penitentiary." He was sentenced accordingly. The verdict and judgment are part of the record proper which it is our duty to examine for error, whether or not any error appearing in the record proper be assigned by the appellant in his motion for a new trial or in his brief filed in this court.
[1, 2, 3] Appellant does not predicate any error upon the verdict or judgment. But they are fatally defective. The verdict is general in form. It does not precisely and definitely find appellant guilty of the particular offenses with which he was charged. The assessment of one punishment comports alone with the idea and theory of one crime. And the punishment fixed is the most extreme imposed by law for the offense of burglary in the second degree. The judgment follows the verdict and repeats its errors. Section 4056, Revised Statutes 1929, 4 Annotated Statutes, page 2735, provides that if any person, in committing burglary, shall also commit a larceny, he may be prosecuted for both offenses in the same count or in separate counts, and, on conviction of such burglary and larceny, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, in addition to the punishment prescribed by the burglary statute, for not less than two nor exceeding five years. This section makes an exception to the general rule that a person cannot on the same trial be convicted upon two different and distinct felonies. [State v. McHenry (Mo.), 207 S.W. 808.] But, if a defendant is found guilty of burglary and larceny the verdict should separately so find as well as fix a separate punishment for each offense. It has been held many times by this court that a general verdict on a charge of burglary and larceny under Section 4056, Revised Statutes 1929, is reversible error. [State v. Stewart, 44 S.W. (2d) 100; State v. McHenry, supra; State v. Rowe, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Meadows
-
State v. Gonterman
... ... State v. Runyon, 411 S.W.2d 69, 71(1) (Mo.1967); State v. Bursby, 395 S.W.2d 155, 161(7) (Mo.1965); State ex rel. Dalton v. Blair, 365 Mo. 1167, 294 S.W.2d 1, 3(1) (1956); State v. Huff, 173 S.W.2d 895, 896(4) (Mo.1943); State v. Meadows, 331 Mo. 533, 55 S.W.2d 959(2-3) (Mo.1932) ... The incumbent judge of the Circuit Court of Dade County is the successor of the judge before whom this case was tried. The latter judge did, in accordance with Rule 26.01(c), make a general finding 4 on ... each of the two counts ... ...
-
State v. Bursby
...review on appeal, it would have been imperative that we reverse and remand it for a new trial for the reason indicated. State v. Meadows, 331 Mo. 533, 55 S.W.2d 959[2, 3]; State ex rel. Dalton v. Blair, 365 Mo. 1167, 294 S.W.2d 1, For the reasons hereinabove discussed, the order overruling ......
-
State v. Summers
...court merely supplied a technical oversight. The instructions of the court required a finding on the omitted issue. State v. Meadows, 331 Mo. 533, 55 S.W.2d 959 (1932). State v. Cline, 447 S.W.2d 538 (Banc Mo.1969), had in it a very similar situation with respect to the verdict actually ret......