State v. Norman
| Decision Date | 17 November 1890 |
| Parties | STATE v. NORMAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. On a trial for the larceny of an overcoat from complaining witness, who was confined in the city prison, the only evidence connecting defendant, another prisoner, with the crime, was that two other prisoners entered his cell with a bundle wrapped in a newspaper, saying it contained dirty clothes, and requesting him to send out the bundle for them. Defendant, without looking into it, passed it through a screen-door to his wife, who carried it home. Shortly thereafter, on search being made, it was discovered that this bundle contained the stolen overcoat. Held, that an instruction authorizing the conviction of defendant if he "did any act in furtherance of the commission of such larceny" was erroneous, as the instruction authorized a conviction even if defendant did not know that the overcoat had been stolen, or that it was in the bundle handed to him.
2. Where the only evidence as to the value of the overcoat is that the complaining witness had paid $30 therefor some 18 months before, it is error to instruct that the jury must either acquit defendant or find him guilty of grand larceny, which is defined by Rev. St. Mo. § 3535, as the stealing of property of the value of $30 or over.
Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; JAMES C. NORMILE, Judge.
L. D. Seward, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant upon his trial in the St. Louis criminal court, upon an indictment for grand larceny, was found guilty, and, on the 4th day of January, 1890, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, in accordance with the verdict rendered in the case. From this judgment he appeals. The offense with which he was charged, and of which he was convicted, was stealing one overcoat of the value of $30, the property of one Joseph Samuels. The evidence for the state in chief tended to show that, on the 2d of November, 1889, the said Samuels and the defendant were inmates of the city jail of St. Louis, the defendant's cell being on the first, and Samuels' on the second, floor. That Samuels was the owner of a light spring overcoat, for which he had paid $30 when new, about a year and a half before. That it was in his cell that morning. That his cell-door was open all the afternoon of that day, and that he was out on the promenade, or in the rotunda, on the first floor, until 5 P. M. That about that time he returned to his cell, found his coat gone, and reported his loss to the guards. That about 4:30 P. M. the defendant's wife came to the jail, bringing him his supper, and remained at the screen-door while the same was taken to her husband's cell by one Clark, another prisoner. While Clark was in the defendants' cell, Jacobsen and Seigel, two other prisoners, came into defendant's cell, "Seigel carrying a bundle in his arms, wrapped up in a newspaper," which he placed on the bunk, Jacobsen saying to defendant: "Send that out for me." That defendant, without looking in this package, gave "that and another small package to Clark," who carried them to the screen and passed them out to Mrs. Norman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Swarens
...but supplement each other. Brown v. Globe Ptg. Co., 213 Mo. 611, 112 S. W. 462, 127 Am. St. Rep. 627; State v. Norman, 101 Mo. 520, 14 S. W. 661, 10 L. R. A. 35, 20 Am. St. Rep. 623. II. As to the concurring opinion of Chief Justice BLAIR concerning the propriety of the instruction that a c......
-
State v. Enochs
... ... the value is admitted to be $ 30 or more. As stated in the ... Nicholas case, quoted from above, "if there is any ... conflict whatever" as to whether the property was worth ... less than $ 30, the question must be submitted to the jury ... Other cases to the same effect are: State v. Norman, ... 101 Mo. 520, 524, 14 S.W. 661, 662, 10 L. R. A. 35, 20 Am ... St. Rep. 623; State v. Thompson, 137 Mo. l. c. 623, ... 39 S.W. l. c. 83; State v. Murphy, 141 Mo. 267, 270, ... 42 S.W. 936, 937 ... We ... think the State's evidence in this case did not establish ... ...
-
State v. Denison
... ... State v. Londe, 132 S.W.2d 501; State v ... Taylor, 320 Mo. 417, 8 S.W.2d 29; State v ... Foley, 119 S.W. 397, 220 Mo. 86; State v ... Enochs, 339 Mo. 953; Sec. 4456, R.S. 1939; State v ... Wells, 234 S.W. 825; State v. Sprague, 149 Mo ... 409, 50 S.W. 901; State v. Norman", 101 Mo. 520, 14 ... S.W. 661, 10 L.R.A. 35, 20 Am. St. Rep. 623; State v ... Thomas, 137 Mo. l.c. 623, 39 S.W. l.c. 83; State v ... Murphy, 141 Mo. 267, 42 S.W. 936. (11) Verdict not ... result of passion and prejudice. State v. Christian, 161 S.W ... 736, 253 Mo. 382 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. McGuire
...lesser offense. R. S. 1929, sec. 3681; 36 C. J. 933; 16 C. J. 1023; State v. Donovan, 121 Mo. 496; State v. Thompson, 137 Mo. 620; State v. Norman, 101 Mo. 520; State Burrell, 298 Mo. 672; State v. Johnson, 6 S.W.2d 898. (4) A confession made by accused under promise or encouragement of any......