State v. Riley
| Citation | 274 S.W. 54 |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25741 |
| Parties | STATE v. RILEY |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty, Gen. (Ellison A. Poulton, of Canton, of counsel), for the State.
The appeal in this case is from a judgment upon conviction in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of larceny from the person, in violation of sections 3315 and 3316, R. S. 1919.
On April 19, 1923, one William Shanks got on a west-bound street car at Twentieth and Olive streets, in St. Louis; soon the defendant got on the car, and, according to Shanks, picked Shanks' pocket. Shanks, feeling him in the operation, felt his pocket and saw defendant's hand taking from his (Shanks') pocket, and holding, some bills. Two $ 10, one $ 5, and four $ 1 bills were taken from Shanks' pocket. Defendant got off the car, and Shanks followed, keeping him in sight until he came across some policemen and caused defendant to be arrested. Defendant was taken to a police station, where two $ 10, one $ 5, and four $ 1 bills were taken from him. His defense was an alibi; on the evidence the jury found him guilty.
Appellant filed no brief in this court, and we have recourse only to the motion for new trial for errors preserved for review. These relate to the introduction of evidence and the giving of instructions and remarks of counsel for the state. Under repeated rulings of this court the instructions are entirely correct. In the record we find no error in the reception or rejection of evidence which should cause a reversal. The principal objections were to the rulings in limiting cross-examination of state's witnesses by defendant's counsel, a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court. We do not find that any harm could have resulted to defendant from the rulings.
Objection was sustained to the argument of defendant's counsel when he said the defendant had served his country. There appears in the record no evidence that defendant had ever served his country in any capacity. The ruling was not improper.
Appellant further complains of the argument of state's attorney. We find nothing in the excerpts presented which does injustice to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial