State v. Renard
| Decision Date | 05 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25644 |
| Citation | 273 S.W. 1058 |
| Parties | STATE v. RENARD |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and George W. Crowder, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The information charges that the defendant, on March 13, 1923 did feloniously carry concealed about his person a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a revolver, loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls. On a trial he was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years, in accordance with the verdict of the jury. No brief has been filed by appellant, nor is he represented here by counsel.
The information is based on section 3275, R. S. 1919, and sufficiently charges the offense. It is not necessary that it should negative the exceptions contained in the proviso. State v. Price, 229 Mo. 670, 682, 129 S.W. 650; Kelley's Crim. Law (3d Ed.) § 193.
The defendant was arrested on the night of March 13th as he was driving his automobile on Olive street in the city of St Louis. The officer who made the arrest, by feeling with his hand, found a loaded revolver on the floor of the car at the defendant's feet. The night was dark, and the revolver could not be seen. The defendant said it belonged to him. This was a concealment within the meaning of the statute. State v. Conley, 280 Mo. 21, 25, 217 S.W. 29. The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. No specific complaint is made as to the instructions given for the state, except No. 4, which reads:
'The court instructs the jury that under the laws of this state, if the accused shall not avail himself of his right to testify on the trial in the case, it shall not be construed to affect the innocence or guilt of the accused, nor shall the same raise any presumption of guilt, nor be referred to by any attorney in the case, nor be considered by the court or jury before whom the trial takes place.'
It is said this is a comment on the fact that the defendant did not testify, in violation of the statute. Section 4037, R. S 1919. The very purpose of the instruction was to advise the jury that under the law the defendant was not required to testify, and that his failure to do so should not be considered by the jury, nor be permitted to raise a presumption of guilt. While this instruction was unnecessary, it has been held not to be error. State v. De Witt, 186 Mo. 61, 84 S.W. 956; State v. Taylor, 261 Mo. 210, 227, 168 S.W. 1191. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial