State v. Reinke

Decision Date01 February 1941
Docket NumberNo. 37344.,37344.
Citation147 S.W.2d 464
PartiesSTATE v. REINKE.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court, Division No. 11; James E. McLaughlin, Judge.

Robert Charles Reinke was convicted of robbery in the first degree by means of a deadly weapon, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

I. Joel Wilson, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and W. J. Burke, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BOHLING, Commissioner.

Robert Charles Reinke appeals from a judgment imposing a sentence of ten years' imprisonment for robbery in the first degree by means of a deadly weapon. Secs. 4058, 4061, R.S.1929, Mo.St.Ann. §§ 4058, 4061, pp. 2856, 2863. The defense was an alibi. The fact of a robbery is not questioned. Appellant's brief admits the victim, if believed by the jury, identified appellant as the robber.

Appellant says the State's main instruction was broader than the information and authorized appellant's conviction for the robbery upon a finding that the appellant did "fraudulently" steal, take and carry away the property involved; that by the use of the words "so stolen," etc., the court usurped the function of the jury and caused the instruction to assume as proved all facts essential to a conviction; and, as a result thereof, that the instruction did not clearly advise the jury as to the law of the case. We think the instruction not vulnerable to the attacks lodged against it. The instruction, with the questioned portions quoted, required the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, at the City of St. Louis, on or about May 2, 1938, the defendant, by means of a revolving pistol, feloniously did assault one Austin, by pointing a pistol at him and demanding the property of one Basye, "and" by violence to his person, etc., "unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently did take in the presence and against the will of" said Austin, $27.64 "with the felonious intent, at the time, unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently to take, steal and carry away the same, and to convert such property unlawfully, feloniously and fraudulently to his own use, * * * and if you further find that said property so stolen, taken and carried away belonged to" said Basye, etc., then you should find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, etc.

"The words `felonious' and `feloniously,' as used in this instruction, mean wickedly and against the admonition of the law."

The use of the word "fraudulently" in the instruction was not such as to authorize a conviction upon a finding that appellant "fraudulently" obtained the property. Every essential element of the offense of robbery as charged, as well as the use of the word "fraudulently," are hypothesized in the conjunctive. Appellant's argument isolates the word "fraudulently" from its setting in the instruction. This he may not sucessfully do. See State v. Cain, Mo.App., 31 S.W.2d 559, 563[12]. If we accept appellant's argument, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Scofield
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1968
    ...125, must have been intended to require proof that defendant gave a wrong name with a bad motive * * *.' 73 P.2d at 965. In State v. Reinke, 147 S.W.2d 464 (Mo. 1941), where the word 'fraudulently' was used in an instruction in a first degree robbery case, the court "Fraudulently' as used i......
  • State v. Harris, 46183
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1958
    ...which we are concerned. They are not controlling or persuasively decisive of the question before us. On the other hand, in State v. Reinke, Mo., 147 S.W.2d 464, 465, where the word 'fraudulently' was used in an instruction in a first degree robbery case, the court held: "Fraudulently' as us......
  • State v. Bright
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1954
    ...is not erroneous. State v. Sakowski, 191 Mo. 635, 642, 90 S.W. 435, 436; State v. Lippman, Mo.Sup., 222 S.W. 436, 440; State v. Reinke, Mo.Sup., 147 S.W.2d 464, 465. Defendant's next contention is that the court erred in admitting prejudicially incompetent hearsay testimony of several witne......
  • State v. Reinke
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1941
  • 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