State v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 08 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 44119,No. 2,44119,2 |
| Citation | 272 S.W.2d 190 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John William ROBERTS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Don C. Carter, Sturgeon, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Richard R. Nacy, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
On September 18, 1953, John William Roberts was convicted in the Circuit Court of Randolph County, Missouri, of robbery in the first degree. His punishment was fixed at five years' imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From the judgment entered, an appeal was taken to this court.
The only point preserved for review pertains to remarks made by the trial court to the jury after the jury had deliberated on reaching a verdict. A brief outline of the evidence will be sufficient.
The evidence of the State and that introduced by the defendant showed the following to have occurred: On Sunday, August 16, 1953, the defendant, the prosecuting witness, and others gathered at the home of Erther Pitts where they spent most of the day visiting, playing cards, and drinking. A number of the men went home before midnight. The defendant Roberts, James Davis, the prosecuting witness Jack Thorpe, Heathel Carter, and Frank (Pappy) Williams remained after midnight. The defendant Roberts and James Davis purchased coffee, whisky, and beer at some places of business nearby soon after midnight. Thorpe contributed some of the money for these purchases.
During the course of the evening, Thorpe had displayed some money while offering to bet on a ball game. About two o'clock Monday morning, the men began to leave the place. A short time after Thorpe left, he returned to Pitts' place claiming he had been robbed by Davis and the defendant. The robbery was alleged to have taken place in a garden a short distance from the Pitts place.
A number of witnesses testified they heard Thorpe calling out 'You've robbed me.' Thorpe testified that there was sufficient light to enable him to recognize the parties who robbed him; that they were the defendant and Davis; that they took $50 from him. The defendant's testimony, corroborated by another witness, was that when he left the group, he went to his room located upstairs in the Pitts home; that some time later, he heard Thorpe state that he (Roberts) had robbed him and he immediately went downstairs and informed Thorpe that he had been in bed upstairs and could not have robbed him.
There was substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. The jury evidently did not believe the defendant's evidence. Some time after the jury had retired to consider the case, the court inquired if the jurors had reached a verdict; being advised that the jury had not reached an agreement, he sent the jury home for the night. The jury returned the next morning and before the jurors were taken to the jury room, the judge admonished them about the desirability of agreeing on a verdict. Appellant claims the following statements to the jury by the trial judge were prejudicial:
We do not find in the remarks of the trial judge any indication as to his views on the merits of the case. No juror could draw the conclusion from the remarks that the trial court was desirous of convicting the defendant. Admonitions of the character as used by the trial court set forth supra have been held to be proper in many cases. State v. Shelby, 333 Mo. 610, 62 S.W.2d 721, loc. cit. 725, 726(7-9); State v. Bell,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Magwood
...Walker v. State, 71 Ga.App. 38, 29 S.E.2d 819, 819-20 (1944); Arnett v. Commonwealth, 470 S.W.2d 834, 838 (Ky.1971); State v. Roberts, 272 S.W.2d 190, 192 (Mo.1954); People v. Silvernail, 55 A.D.2d 72, 389 N.Y.S.2d 641, 643 (1976); State v. Williams, 39 Ohio St.2d 20, 313 N.E.2d 859, 862-63......
-
State v. Summers, 49237
...announced to counsel that his statement to the jury had followed as nearly as possible the statement made and approved in State v. Roberts, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 190, 192. The record does not show how much longer the jury deliberated before returning its verdict. The only information we have on t......
-
State v. Watson
...the defendant at the time or later in his motion for new trial. This instruction is the same as that given and approved in State v. Roberts, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 190, 192 in a similar situation. Defendant argues in his brief that this instruction indicated to the jury that the trial court 'wante......
-
Nash v. Plaza Elec., Inc.
...of similar admonitions to juries has been considered in, among others, the Shelby, Hoffman and Anderson cases, supra; State v. Roberts, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 190, 192; State v. Stegall, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 900[1, 2]; State v. Keller, Mo., 344 S.W.2d 65, Considering the admonition in the case at bar a......