State v. Preston

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtNORTON
Citation77 Mo. 294
PartiesTHE STATE v. PRESTON, Appellant.
Decision Date30 April 1883

77 Mo. 294

THE STATE
v.
PRESTON, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1883.


Appeal from Johnson Criminal Court.--HON. J. E. RYLAND, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

S. P. Sparks for appellant.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.


NORTON, J.

Defendant was tried in the criminal court

[77 Mo. 295]

of Johnson county upon an indictment charging him with grand larceny in stealing two hogs of the value of $37. He was found guilty and his punishment assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, from which judgment he has appealed to this court, and the chief points relied upon by counsel for a reversal of the judgment are, that the verdict is against the evidence, that the court misdirected the jury as to the law, and that the circuit attorney was allowed to make improper remarks in his argument to the jury.

1. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

That defendant stole the hogs in question, we think is clearly established by the evidence, but it is insisted by counsel that the weight of evidence showed them to be under the value of $30, and that, therefore, the verdict of the jury finding defendant guilty of grand larceny is against the evidence. The evidence as to the value of the hogs was conflicting. James E. Rankin, from whose feed-lot the hogs were taken, and who was a farmer and had been buying and selling hogs for thirty years, testified that the hogs were worth $32 or $33. His evidence in this respect was corroborated by that of Robert E. Rankin, William Hunt and Simmerman. On the other hand, witness Clark, who bought the hogs of defendant, testified that he weighed them, and at the market price they were worth $24.99, and that he paid defendant that sum for them. His evidence was corroborated by that of Hale, a member of the firm for which witness Clark bought the hogs. On this state of the evidence the jury were directed that if they found defendant stole the hogs, and that they were of the value of $30 or more, they would find him guilty of grand larceny, and if they found them to be of less value than $30, they would find him guilty of petit larceny. The question as to the value of the hogs was thus fairly submitted to the jury, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 6, 1900
    ...though the instructions are contained therein. State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; Same v. McCray, 74 Mo. 303. So it was said in State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294: `It is also insisted that the court erred in giving instructions. This objection cannot be considered by us, for the reason that it is not al......
  • State v. Knapp
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 12, 1914
    ...W. 631, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 675;Brown v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 369, 83 S. W. 704;Howard v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S. W. 948;State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294;Nite v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 54 S. W. 763;State v. Johnston, 88 N. C. 623;McGlothlin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 53 S. W. 869;Arnold v. S......
  • State v. Prunty, No. 20964.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 23, 1918
    ...of any feature of their defense. State v. Hughes, 258 Mo. 271, 167 S. W. 529; State v. Parker, 172 Mo. 191, 72 S. W. 650; State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294. The other remarks made by the prosecutor, detached from their context as they are, do not appear to be improper comments upon the evidence ......
  • State v. Brickey, No. 37365.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1941
    ...for the purpose of drawing deductions therefrom, and was within the scope of legitimate argument in a criminal case. [State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294, 296; State v. Pierce, 320 Mo. 209, 218, 7 S.W. (2d) 269, 272[6]; State v. Fields, 234 Mo. 615, 625(IV), 138 S.W. 518, 520[8]; State v. Janes, 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 6, 1900
    ...though the instructions are contained therein. State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; Same v. McCray, 74 Mo. 303. So it was said in State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294: `It is also insisted that the court erred in giving instructions. This objection cannot be considered by us, for the reason that it is not al......
  • State v. Knapp
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • January 12, 1914
    ...W. 631, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 675;Brown v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 369, 83 S. W. 704;Howard v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S. W. 948;State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294;Nite v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. R. 340, 54 S. W. 763;State v. Johnston, 88 N. C. 623;McGlothlin v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 53 S. W. 869;Arnold v. S......
  • State v. Prunty, No. 20964.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 23, 1918
    ...of any feature of their defense. State v. Hughes, 258 Mo. 271, 167 S. W. 529; State v. Parker, 172 Mo. 191, 72 S. W. 650; State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294. The other remarks made by the prosecutor, detached from their context as they are, do not appear to be improper comments upon the evidence ......
  • State v. Brickey, No. 37365.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1941
    ...for the purpose of drawing deductions therefrom, and was within the scope of legitimate argument in a criminal case. [State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294, 296; State v. Pierce, 320 Mo. 209, 218, 7 S.W. (2d) 269, 272[6]; State v. Fields, 234 Mo. 615, 625(IV), 138 S.W. 518, 520[8]; State v. Janes, 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT