State v. Pollock

• Decision Date: 01 March 1904
• Citation: 79 S.W. 980,105 Mo. App. 273
• Parties: STATE v. POLLOCK.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

79 S.W. 980

105 Mo. App. 273

STATE v. POLLOCK.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 1, 1904.

RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS — INDICTMENT — NAME OF OWNER — SUFFICIENCY — OBJECTION TO INDICTMENT — APPEAL — VERDICT — RESPONSIVENESS.

1. An indictment under Rev. St. 1899, § 1916, making it an offense to receive stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, which alleged that the goods were the property of "B. Bros.," was insufficient for not naming the owner.

2. An objection that the indictment was insufficient because it did not name the owner of the goods might be raised for the first time on appeal.

3. On a prosecution under Rev. St. 1899, § 1916, for receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, the verdict of the jury was that defendant was guilty of receiving stolen property. Held that, the jury having undertaken to set out the elements of the crime, the verdict was insufficient as not responsive to the indictment, in that it failed to show that the jury found that defendant knew that the goods were stolen.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Walter B. Douglas, Judge.

Alexander J. Pollock was convicted of receiving stolen goods, and he appeals. Reversed.

Thos. B. Harvey, for appellant. Joseph W. Folk, for the State.

Statement.

BLAND, P. J.

At the October term, 1902, of the criminal division of the St. Louis circuit court, the grand jury returned the following indictment against the defendant: "The grand jurors of the state of Missouri, within and for the body of the city of St. Louis, now here in court, duly impaneled, sworn, and charged, upon their oath present that Alexander J. Pollock, on the fifteenth day of October, one thousand nine hundred and two, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, two gold watches, one pair gold cuff buttons, one plated watch chain, all of the value of fifty dollars, of the goods, chattels, and personal property of Butler Bros., then lately before feloniously stolen, taken and carried away from the said Butler Bros., with the intent on the part of the thief to permanently deprive the owner of the use thereof, feloniously and fraudulently did from said thief buy, receive, and have, he, the said Alexander J. Pollock, then and there well knowing the said goods, chattels, and personal property to have been stolen, taken, and carried away with the intent as aforesaid to permanently deprive the owner of the use thereof, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. W. Scott Hancock, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney." A jury was impaneled to try the cause, who, after hearing the evidence and receiving the instructions of the court, returned the following verdict: "We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen property of less than thirty ($30) dollars in value, and assess the punishment at six (6) months in jail and a fine of one hundred ($100) dollars. S. H. Burt, Foreman." A timely motion for new trial was filed, which the court overruled. This was followed by a motion in arrest of judgment, based on the sole ground that "the verdict of the jury is insufficient in law to sustain a judgment." This motion was likewise overruled. Defendant appealed.

Opinion.

1. One of the grounds for the motion for new trial was that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, and counsel for appellant insist here that there is no sufficient evidence of defendant's guilt to support the verdict. We do not deem it necessary to summarize the evidence or to discuss its probative force, as we shall dispose of the appeal on other grounds.

2. The sufficiency of the indictment to support the judgment is attacked on the ground that it fails to allege the ownership of the property charged to have been stolen; that the designation of Butler Bros. as the owners of the property does not point out or individuate the owner of the goods. Butler Bros. is not the name of an individual, is not described in the indictment as a partnership composed of individuals whose names are given, nor as a corporation. Butler Bros. designates neither an individual, corporation, nor partnership, hence the owner of the stolen goods is not named in the indictment. It is a well-settled rule of criminal pleading that in indictments for larceny, and in all other indictments for crime in which the commission of a trespass against the person or property of another is an essential ingredient of the offense, the name of the person specially injured should be stated in the indictment. State v. Jones, 168 Mo. 398, 68 S. W. 566; ...