State v. Moore

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Thomas, J.
• Citation: State v. Moore, 106 Mo. 480, 17 S.W. 658 (Mo. 1891)
• Decision Date: 16 November 1891
• Parties: The State v. Moore, Appellant

17 S.W. 658

106 Mo. 480

The State v. Moore, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 16, 1891

October, 1891

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. -- Hon. J. C. Normile, Judge.

Affirmed.

John M Wood, Attorney General, and A. C. Clover, Circuit Attorney for the State.

(1) The verdict was warranted by the evidence; the quantum of force used was more than sufficient to make the offense robbery. State v. Broderick, 59 Mo. 318, and cases cited. (2) If the accused told the truth he is guilty of no offense; if the prosecuting witness is to be believed, he is guilty of robbery; hence, there was no error in refusing to instruct for petit larceny. State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 365.

OPINION

Thomas, J.

The defendant, William Moore, was convicted of robbery of the first degree at the May term, 1890, of the St. Louis criminal court, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Only an abstract of the testimony is contained in the record, and from this it appears that the prosecuting witness, Mrs. Mary Waitz, was walking at midday on Fourteenth street, in the city of St. Louis, and carrying in her left arm a couple of packages, on the top of which her pocketbook was lying. As she approached the mouth of an alley a negro sprang out and made a grab at the pocketbook; as he did so Mrs. Waitz caught hold of it, whereupon the man struck her a blow in the breast, wrested the pocketbook from her hand and fled. In a few moments after, the defendant was found a short distance from the place of assault in a water-closet with his clothing in disorder; he was put under arrest, and at once positively identified by Mrs. Waitz as her assailant. A search of the water-closet resulted in the finding of Mrs. Waitz's pocketbook, from which $ 20 had been taken. The only defense made was a denial of all knowledge of the transaction by the defendant, and proof of his former good character.

The defendant asked, and was refused, two instructions. One, asked at the conclusion of the state's case, was in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence, and the other for petit larceny.

The court properly defined the offense of robbery of the first degree and fully instructed the jury in regard to the credibility of the witnesses, reasonable doubt and the good character of defendant.

I. The court committed no error in overruling defendant's demurrer to the evidence. The evidence warranted the...