State v. Rawson

Citation259 S.W. 421
Decision Date04 March 1924
Docket NumberNo. 25222.,25222.
PartiesSTATE v. RAWSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Samuel Davis, Judge.

John Rawson was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Lyons & Ristine, of Lexington, and Chas. A. McNeese, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett. Atty. Gen., and Henry Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, J.

On trial before a jury in the circuit court of Lafayette county, October 17, 1922, the defendant was found guilty of grand larceny, and his punishment assessed at two years in the state penitentiary. Thereafter, November 13, 1922, the court rendered judgment imposing the sentence upon him, and from that judgment he appealed in due form.

The defendant, jointly charged with Fred Rawson, his brother, and Earl James, was granted a severance and tried with the result mentioned. The evidence shows that January 17, 1922, a building owned by Meyer, Kroencke and Holsten, who were engaged in the general merchandise business in the town of Concordia, Lafayette county, was broken into, and merchandise to the value of about $4,000 was carried away. Tracks appeared near the back door, indicating that the merchandise had been carried away in.a truck. The defendant resided in an apartment building on Twelfth street, in Kansas City. On the third floor of the building were two apartments. The defendant occupied one, and his brother, Grover Rawson, occupied the other. In the defendant's apartment were found two overcoats, three suits of clothes, ten pairs of men's silk hose, three pairs ladies' black silk hose, and two pieces of silk shirting. All the clothing excepting the hosiery had been worn. The owners of the store did not identify any of those articles as having been taken from their store. A large quantity of stolen articles was found in the apartment of Grover Rawson, defendant's brother, but none in the appellant's apartment. The only testimony to connect the defendant with the larceny was, as follows:

Mr. Kroencke testified that it looked as if a truck that had been pulled up back of the store had made a deep impression in the dust. The truck, he said, made a "knobby" tread. In further describing it the witness said:

"They were just like those ordinary treads on cars here; how deep a mark they make, they are a half inch to a quarter in the dust."

That is all the evidence indicating the character of the truck which probably hauled the goods from the store.

One witness, a Mr. Scantlin, testified that on the morning of January 17, 1922, he was on the Santa Fe trail, and saw the defendant in a truck between Dover and Waverly; it was a big, three-ton truck; looked like an Overland; and it had "what I would call a stagger tread on one and an interlocking cross on the other hind tire. I don't remember what the front tires were." He meant by that the tread on the tire was raised. The witness described the truck; he said it had curtains on it, tied down at the bottom with a rope, and was going very slowly; it seemed to be loaded because the back curtain seemed to bulge out. A colored man was driving the truck.

On cross-examination this§ witness testified that he did not know what kind of a truck it was, nor what make it was, and in asking him to describe the person on the truck he said he had the general features of the defendant; was dish-faced; that his chin and forehead stuck out further than his nose. He gave a signal to the truck, desiring to ride, but neither the person he thought was the defendant nor the negro driver paid any attention.

On this evidence the defendant was convicted.

The Attorney General confesses error in several respects which would necessitate a...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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