State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 71 Mo. 89 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. W. DUNN, Judge.
REVERSED.
Tichnor & Warner and W. M. Burris for appallant.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
The defendant was indicted at the May term, 1875, of the criminal court of Jackson county, in Kansas City. The indictment contained two counts, in the first of which defendant was charged with grand larceny, and in the second with receiving stolen goods. The cause was tried at the August term, 1878, of the Clay county circuit court, to which it had been transferred by change of venue, and defendant was found not guilty as to the first, and guilty as to the second count, and his punishment assessed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The cause is here by appeal.
While the evidence tends to show that the goods which the defendant is charged with having stolen, and with having received, knowing them to be stolen, were taken from the barn of one Everhart, in Kansas City, who was the owner of them, there is a total failure of evidence either showing or tending to show that the goods were received by defendant either in Kansas City or Jackson county. And as there was no evidence tending to show that the offense charged in the second count of the indictment was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, the judgment rendered upon the verdict of the jury must be reversed. Whether this omission occurred from inadvertence in making up the bill of exceptions or the failure of the State to make the proof on the trial, is immaterial. While the evidence tends to show that a part of the stolen goods were found at the “place of business” of defendant, it entirely fails to show where that place of business was. State v. Meyer, 64 Mo. 190; Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375.
This view of the case renders it unnecessary to discuss the other numerous exceptions to the action of the trial court, though it may be proper to observe that when a witness is called to impeach another by proof of general character, a liberal cross-examination touching his means of knowledge should be allowed, and authorities of the highest respectability go to the extent of saying that on such cross-examination it is permissible to inquire of the witness the name of the person whom he has heard speak against the reputation of the witness sought to be impeached, as it may turn out that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McKenzie
... ... State v. Robinson, 73 Mo. 306; ... State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 592. (6) For the reason that ... the evidence adduced at the trial does not show in what ... county the alleged offense was committed, the judgment must ... be reversed. State v. Meyer, 64 Mo. 190; State ... v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; State v. Hughes, 71 Mo ... 633; State v. McGrath, 73 Mo. 182; State v ... McGinnis, 74 Mo. 245; State v. Hartnett, 75 Mo ... 251; State v. Burgess, 75 Mo. 541; State v ... Babb, 76 Mo. 501; State v. Hughes, 82 Mo. 86; ... State v. Young, 99 Mo. 284 ... John ... ...
-
State v. Kenyon
...The conviction in this case cannot stand for the reason there was no sufficient proof of the cause. State v. Hughes, 71 Mo. 633; State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; State v. Meyer, 64 Mo. 190. (3) The record fails to show that the verdict was rendered by the twelve men paneled to try the cause, or ......
-
State v. Hope
...upon particular instances which test the truth of his statements in the examination in chief. 1 Greenl. Ev., secs. 461, 445-450; State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89; 3 Russ. on Crimes, No reasons were assigned for objections to this testimony at the time, and the action of the court in admitting the......
-
State v. Crow
...called on the question of general character, a liberal cross-examination should be allowed touching his knowledge of credibility. State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 89. On cross-examination the witness may be compelled to answer any question which tends to test his credibility. Muller v. Hospital Ass'......