State v. Reed
| Decision Date | 11 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 45311,No. 1,45311,1 |
| Citation | 298 S.W.2d 426 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Clyde REED, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Shepard R. Evans, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Grover C. Huston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
HOLMAN, Commissioner.
Defendant (appellant) James Clyde Reed was found guilty of the offense of larceny from the person of Robert Gill in an amount exceeding $30, and the jury found that he had been convicted of a prior felony, and hence the maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment was imposed. Sections 560.155, 560.190, 556.280(2) RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. From the ensuing judgment defendant has appealed.
No brief has been filed by the defendant and we must therefore examine the assignments in his motion for new trial. There of the ten assignments relate to the insufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction. We will therefore state the facts as disclosed in the transcript filed herein.
The prosecuting witness testified that he lived at the Acme Hotel, 4040 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri. At about 6:45 p. m. on February 20, 1955, he left the hotel and went to a nearby drug store at the intersection of Sarah and Olive Streets. After making a purchase, Gill started back to the hotel but stopped for a short time at a tavern and drank a beer. When he came out he saw three men standing in front of the tavern. As he started toward the hotel one of them called, 'Wait a minute.' They caught up with him and two of the men grabbed his arms and 'stripped' off his coat. The third man came up behind him and 'went into' his pocket. All three of the men then left the scene of the occurrence and Mr. Gill picked up his coat and wallet from the sidewalk, discovering that thirty-two dollars had been taken from his wallet. He then went to the hotel and had the room clerk call the police.
Two police officers arrived in about ten minutes and Gill went with them in search of the men. Within a few minutes they saw defendant and one Edward Ray walking down Olive Street and Gill recognized them as the two men that had held his arms. They were arrested, questioned and searched. No substantial sum of money was found in the possession of either of these men. According to Gill and one of the officers, defendant denied taking the money, but stated that they had been in a scuffle with the prosecuting witness.
Defendant and Edward Ray each testified that they did not take the money and had never seen Gill until they were arrested.
As indicated by the foregoing statement, the prosecuting witness made a positive identification of defendant as being one of the men who held his arms while the larceny was being committed. That testimony constituted substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably find defendant guilty of the offense charged. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence we consider that testimony as true. State v. Harmon, Mo.Sup., 243 S.W.2d 326. We therefore rule that the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal.
Another assignment of defendant is that the court erred in permitting the State to amend the information after the jury was selected and sworn. This contention is without merit. According to the transcript the only amendment of the information on the date of trial was made before the jury was selected and without objection on the part of defendant.
The State charged, under the Habitual Criminal Act, Section 556.280(2) RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., that defendant had been convicted of the prior felony of armed robbery in the circuit court of Dunklin County, Missouri, and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Records were admitted in evidence indicating that J. C. Reed was convicted of said offense in said county on November 28, 1938; that he began serving the 15-year sentence in the state penitentiary on August 8, 1940, and was discharged under commutation of sentence February 21, 1950. On cross-examination the defendant admitted that he had been so convicted and sentenced. In his motion for new trial defendant states that the court erred in admitting evidence of the prior conviction. No reason is suggested as to why the evidence should not have been admitted and hence it would appear that the assignment is probably too general to preserve anything for review. However, it may be noted that it was necessary to prove the former conviction in order to support a submission of that issue to the jury. State v. Dalton, Mo.Sup., 23 S.W.2d 1....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Peterson
...75. In addition, upon cross-examination the appellant readily admitted the prior conviction and the service of his sentence (State v. Reed, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 426; State v. Scott, Mo., 299 S.W.2d 526) and there was no error in the court's instructing the jury upon the subject of second offense......
-
State v. Thomas, 51006
...to establish the defendant's identity for the purpose of showing a prior conviction under the Habitual Criminal Act. State v. Reed, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 426, 428. Even a variation in one or more of the names is sufficientevidence to present to the trier of the facts whether the defendant is the ......
-
State v. Griffin
...v. Hadley, Mo., 249 S.W.2d 857[6, 10]. We have said that identity of names is prima facie sufficient to establish identity. State v. Reed, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 426, 428; State v. Baugh, Mo., 323 S.W.2d 685, 691. This evidence established the habitual criminal charge under prior Sec. 556.280 and ......
-
State v. Williams
...for the purpose of showing a prior conviction within the Habitual Criminal Act. State v. Romprey, Mo., 339 S.W.2d 746, 753; State v. Reed, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 426, 428; State v. Hands, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 14, 18. The specification of error is The next ground of error alleged is that the court commi......