State v. Morledge

• Decision Date: 12 November 1901
• Citation: 164 Mo. 522,65 S.W. 226
• Parties: STATE v. MORLEDGE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 S.W. 226

164 Mo. 522

STATE v. MORLEDGE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 12, 1901.

ROBBERY — INDICTMENT — OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY — VARIANCE — WITHDRAWING QUESTION FROM JURY.

1. An indictment for robbery in the first degree, which alleges that R. is the owner of the property stolen, is bad, where it appears that the property actually belongs to R.'s employers.

2. Where the evidence is entirely inadequate to establish the defense of insanity, such defense is properly withdrawn from the jury's consideration.

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; Jno. W. Wofford, Judge.

C. E. Morledge was convicted of robbery in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.

J. C. Stanley and Jos. S. Brooks, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., H. S. Hadley, and Frank G. Johnson, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county of robbery in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at 25 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appeals.

It appears from the record that on the night of the 21st of January, 1890, one John Resmussen was in charge, as night bartender, of a saloon on West Twelfth street, Kansas City, Mo., which belonged to Schattner Bros., and that about half past 4 o'clock a. m. defendant entered the saloon, having on a short white coat, a soft white hat, and a handkerchief tied over his face, and a pistol in each hand. He commanded Resmussen and another man, who was then in the saloon, and the porter, to throw up their hands; and, they having complied with his command, he went behind the bar, opened the drawer of the cash register, and took the money, amounting to over $20, therefrom. Immediately thereafter a policeman was informed of the robbery, and apprehended defendant about 2½ blocks from where it occurred. When the officer stopped him, defendant had his hands in his overcoat pocket, and a revolver in each hand. He took defendant back to the saloon. At first he was not recognized, but when the officers pulled the white hat from the prisoner's pocket, together with the money taken, and Resmussen's revolver, and found that he had three handkerchiefs around his neck, he said he committed the robbery because he needed the money. On being taken to the station the defendant first gave the name of Morley, but later, on being recognized by some officer, he gave his right name. While at the station he sent for James A. Einley, who at the trial testified as a witness for defendant. On his cross-examination he said that the prisoner told him in the conversation he had at the station that he robbed Schattner's, McClintock's, and a little restaurant between Twelfth and Thirteenth streets; that he got $145 from McClintock's, 20-odd dollars from Schattner's, and $6.65 from the other place; and that he robbed these places one right after the other. The indictment charges that the money and pistol taken by defendant were the property of John Resmussen, while the evidence showed that the money belonged to Schattner Bros.

Over the objection and exception of defendant, the court, at the instance of the state, instructed the jury as follows: "(1) The court instructs the jury that if they find and believe from the evidence that the defendant, C. E. Morledge, did, at the county of Jackson and state of Missouri, at any time within three (3) years next before the 25th day of January, 1900, unlawfully...