State v. Page
| Decision Date | 19 February 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 26966.,26966. |
| Citation | 192 S.W.2d 577 |
| Parties | STATE v. PAGE. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Louis Comerford, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Ignatius Page, Jr., was convicted of petit larceny, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Ignatius Page, Sr., of St. Louis, for appellant.
William C. Lochmoeller, Pros. Atty., of St. Louis, and Thos. M. Gioia, Associate Pros. Atty., of St. Louis, for respondent.
The appellant was charged in an information filed in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction with the crime of petit larceny, and after trial was found guilty and sentenced to sixty days in the workhouse.
The subject of the larceny was a revolver, the property of one Ollie Porter. The latter testified that he purchased the revolver, a thirty-two twenty Smith and Weston, from John Holmes in 1925, for $25, and that during December, 1944, he kept it at the head of his bed between two mattresses, wrapped in a piece of black oilcloth. On the Monday prior to December 31, 1944, which was a Thursday, he saw the gun in its usual place between the mattresses. On Thursday it was gone. The next day he asked defendant if he had taken the gun, and defendant denied taking it. However, on the next day defendant came to his house, and admitted that he had taken the revolver, and stated that he would bring it back. Defendant never did bring the revolver to witness. Porter testified that he never gave defendant permission to take the revolver. Every time the witness saw defendant after that, defendant promised to bring the revolver back.
On December 29th or 30th, Porter made a report to the police, and defendant was arrested and charged with the crime of petit larceny. Porter testified that the gun was worth $30. Later it was agreed between counsel representing the State and defendant's attorney that the value of the gun was $25.
Four other witnesses testified to defendant's admitting that he had the gun. Appellant testified in his own behalf, and denied taking the gun.
There was evidence concerning defendant's domestic difficulties, and a fight with his mother-in-law and wife, which we will not detail, because not material to the issues on this appeal.
Appellant complains that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the information on the ground that there was no sufficient description of the property alleged to have been stolen. Said property was described in the information as a blue steel revolver of the value of Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) lawful money of the United States. This was a sufficient description. State v. North, 337 Mo. 470, 85 S.W. 2d 46.
Appellant next complains that the revolver was not property subject to larceny because the owner did not secure a permit when he purchased it. There is no merit to this contention. 36 C.J. 747; Osborne v. State, 115 Tenn. 717, 92 S.W. 853, 5 Ann.Cas. 797.
Appellant's next point is that the property was not identified at the trial. The owner and prosecuting witness did identify the gun as a thirty-two twenty Smith and Weston. This was a sufficient identification.
Appellant next complains that the testimony of the prosecuting witness that defendant admitted he took the revolver was inadmissible under the hearsay rule. The evidence was admissible as an admission, a well-known exception to the hearsay rule. 16 C.J. 626, 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 728; State v. Grubb, 201 Mo. 585, 99 S.W. 1083; State v. Wisdom, 119 Mo. 539, 24 S.W. 1047. It is further objected that the evidence was not admissible because when offered the corpus delicti had not been proved. We believe there is no merit to this contention. The prosecuting witness had testified that he owned the gun, that it was missing from the place where he kept it, and that he had seen it three days before. It was missing after the accused had visited his home. He testified that he gave no one permission to take the gun. The gun had never been seen since. After the admission of this evidence, four other witnesses testified that defendant admitted having the gun. Under the law in this state, full proof of the corpus delicti independent of the confession is not required. In State v. Skibiski, 245 Mo. 459, 150 S.W. 1038, 1039, the court says:
The next point raised is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapman v. King
...405, 45 S.W.2d 71, 78; Devine, supra note 6, 300 Mo. at 187-188, 254 S.W. at 68; State v. McLaughlin, 27 Mo. 111, 112; State v. Page, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 577, 579(10); Browhaw v. Dowd, Mo.App., 187 S.W.2d 29, 30(1).8 Davis v. Illinois Term. R. Co., Mo., 326 S.W.2d 78, 86-87; Arnold v. May D......
-
State v. Chase, 53220
...evidence. State v. McCormack, Mo., 263 S.W.2d 344, 346(3); State v. Gyngard, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 73, 79(10), 90 A.L.R.2d 639; State v. Page, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 577, 578(3). The defendant's contention is Following this initial statement are four paragraphs in the nature of statements of positio......
-
State v. Green
...guilt on his part were clearly admissible as admissions against interest. State v. Sinovich, 329 Mo. 909, 46 S.W.2d 877, 881; State v. Page, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 577; State v. Daly, 210 Mo. 664, 109 S.W. 53; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law Sec. 730, p. 1243. Much of the matter related by this witness......
-
State v. Dowling
...that descriptions of same character as in this case were sufficient. See also State v. Robinson, Mo.Sup., 184 S.W.2d 1004; State v. Page, Mo.App., 192 S.W.2d 577. We, therefore, hold that the description in this information was Defendant's contention that she was entitled to a directed verd......