State v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 22 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 26167.,26167.
• Parties: STATE v. HALLIDAY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

278 S.W. 971

STATE v. HALLIDAY.

No. 26167.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 22, 1925.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; V. H. Falkenhainer, Judge.

George V. Halliday was convicted of embezzlement and he appeals. Affirmed.

Wayne Ely, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and J. Henry Caruthers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BLAIR, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of the felony of embezzlement upon the second' count of the indictment. The first count charged defendant with the felony of grand larceny, but the state elected to stand upon the second count. Defendant was sentenced upon the verdict to imprisonment in the penitentiary for three years, and has appealed.

The state of the record in this case is identical with that of the case of State v. Halliday (No. 26169) 278 S. W. 970, this day decided. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, there is nothing before us for consideration, except the record proper. We have examined such record. The only complaint made in defendant's brief as to any matter appearing in the record proper is as to the verdict. This complaint is that the verdict was against the law as declared by the court. We are precluded from considering this assignment, because the instructions of the trial court are not properly before us. In so far as appears from the record proper, the verdict is responsive to the second count of the indictment and is sufficient to support the judgment.

The legal sufficiency of the second count of the indictment, upon which defendant was convicted, has not been challenged. It follows the language of section 3327, R. S. 1919, and approved precedents, and is sufficient.

The record shows that defendant was duly arraigned and tried before a legally qualified jury, which returned its verdict into court in the presence of defendant. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled. Thereafter defendant was duly sentenced upon the verdict, after having been accorded allocution, as required by law.

Finding no reversible error in any of the proceedings appearing in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.