State v. Rutledge
Decision Date | 10 May 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 43735,43735,1 |
Citation | 267 S.W.2d 625 |
Parties | STATE v. RUTLEDGE |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles Rutledge, pro se.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Will F. Berry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has appealed and, in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S., we examine matters previously considered part of the record proper.
The information alleged five previous convictions, one in Illinois, two in California and two in Missouri. It then charged the crime of sodomy as follows: 'The said defendant, Charles Albert Rutledge, on or about the 6th day of August, 1952, at and in the County of Cape Girardeau in the State of Missouri, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, commit the detestable and abominable crime against nature by then and there placing the sexual organ of the said Charles Rutledge into the anus of one Arthur Ray Rhodes, contrary to the form of the Statutes in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.' This information was in proper form to charge defendant with the crime of sodomy under Section 563.230. Statutory references are to RSMo and V.A.M.S.; State v. Hannon, Mo.Sup., 7 S.W.2d 278 and cases cited. It also properly charged prior convictions under which defendant was imprisoned and from which he was discharged. See Sections 556.280 and 556.290.
The verdict was: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of Sodomy and assess his punishment at imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for Life.' This verdict was general in form, responsive to the charge and assessed punishment within the limits authorized by Section 563.230. See State v. Villinger, Mo.Sup., 237 S.W.2d 132. Appellant was afforded allocution and sentenced in conformity with the verdict of the jury so we find no record proper error.
Defendant has filed a brief (covering the grounds of his motion for new trial) in which he contends that the Court should have directed a verdict because there was no credible, substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. However, Arthur Ray (13 years old at the time of the trial) testified positively that the act charged occurred, under a railroad trestle about a mile from the town of Delta, after defendant had got him to drink some gin. There was testimony by another boy that defendant got him to go that afternoon and get Arthur Ray and that he left them together near the railroad. Arthur Ray admitted that he once told defendant's counsel that there was no penetration but, at the trial, he positively testified that there was and that he had soreness from it. He also said he did not tell anyone what had happened until State Highway Patrolman Swingle asked him about it and told him he was going to take him to the Jackson jail. He said he told Patrolman Swingle the truth. We must hold that this testimony was substantial evidence and that its credibility was for the jury. Even if the pathic in this case be considered an accomplice, a conviction may be sustained on uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice if it is believed by the jury. State v. Emrich, Mo.Sup., 250 S.W.2d 718; State v. Bockman, Mo.Sup., 251 S.W.2d 607; See also cases cited in these two cases. Furthermore, there were some corroborating circumstances herein.
The law as to accomplices is stated in State v. Glazebrook, Mo.Sup., 242 S.W. 928, which also we think properly criticises State v. Wilkens, 221 Mo. 444, 120 S.W. 22, in its statement that a boy of this age would be an accomplice in the crime of sodomy. On that subject, the opinion states : We hold that the Court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant.
Defendant claims error in failure to instruct on all issues. He complains of two...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Pilkinton
...wholly disregarded, the appellate court still examines pursuant to Rule 28.02 what formerly was termed 'the record proper' [State v. Rutledge, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 625 (1); State v. King, 365 Mo. 48, 56, 275 S.W.2d 310, 315] and such assignments of error in the motion for new trial as are suffic......
-
State v. King
...for error under Supreme Court Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S. 122. See Sec. 547.270; State v. Barr, 326 Mo. 1095, 34 S.W.2d 477, 479; State v. Rutledge, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 625. In the instant case we do not find the judgments of appellant's prior convictions of Under the authorities the prior convicti......
-
State v. Perkins
...instruction even when requested by the accused is not error. State v. Denison, 352 Mo. 572, 178 S.W.2d 449, 455[13, 14]; State v. Rutledge, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 625, 626; State v. West, Mo., 356 S.W.2d 880, We have considered all of the specifications of error presented by the defendant and find......
-
State v. Leimer, 8300
...468; McCarthy, supra, 336 S.W.2d loc. cit. 417; State v. Cox, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 46, 50; Lorts, supra, 269 S.W.2d loc. cit. 92; State v. Rutledge, Mo., 267 S.W.2d 625; Birkner, supra, note 9; Dimmick, supra, 53 S.W.2d loc. cit. 265; State v. Baublits, 324 Mo. 1199, 27 S.W.2d 16, ...