State v. Preston
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 77 Mo. 294 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. PRESTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Criminal Court.--HON. J. E. RYLAND, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
S. P. Sparks for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
Defendant was tried in the criminal court 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.
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 evidence of the hogs being of less value than $30 does not so preponderate as to justify us in saying that the jury, in arriving at the conclusion that they were worth $30 or more, were influenced by passion or prejudice, especially so, in view of the fact, that they had the witnesses before them, three or four of whom testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brickey
... ... e., hurtful, damaging or ... detrimental, to a defendant and not be improper. The ... statement referred to the case made by the evidence 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, 318 Mo. 525, 530, 1 S.W.2d 137, ... 138[3]; State v. McKeever, 339 Mo. 1066, 1085[13], ... 101 S.W.2d 22, 32[31-33]; State v ... ...
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
... ... Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15; 26 ... Wis. 648; 2 Thomp. on Neg., sec. 58, p. 1266; Field on Dam., ... sec. 886; Reid v. Ins Co., 58 Mo. 421; State v ... Alexander, 66 Mo. 163-4; Edens v. Railroad, 72 ... Mo. 212. Damages must be left largely to the discretion of ... the jury. It, however, ... Burckhartt, 83 Mo. 43; Gaines v. Fender, 82 Mo ... 497; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 120; State v ... Emory, 79 Mo. 461; State v. Preston, 77 Mo ... 294; Wakefield v. Richardson, 77 Mo. 589; ... Anthony v. Railroad, 76 Mo. 18; Rucker v ... Rucker, 59 Mo. 17; Matlock v ... ...
-
Haniford v. Kansas City
...561; Blakely v. Railroad, 79 Mo. 388; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119; Gaines v. Fender, 82 Mo. 497; Hulett v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 131; State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294. (8) The of a jury will not be set aside or disturbed, on the ground that damages are excessive, unless the damages are so excessive a......
-
Johnson v. State
...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......