State v. Sanders

• Decision Date: 18 February 1928
• Docket Number: 28372
• Parties: STATE v. SANDERS
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 S.W.2d 813

STATE v. SANDERS

No. 28372

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

February 18, 1928

Motion for Rehearing Denied March 24, 1928.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and Smith B. Atwood, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS C.

The grand jury of Jackson county jointly indicted defendant with his wife for buying and receiving property stolen from L. B Ely, knowing it to have been stolen. The jury returned a verdict acquitting the wife, but found defendant guilty, assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of three and a half years, defendant appealing from the judgment entered thereon.

The facts may be briefly stated. The evidence submitted on the part of the state warrants the finding that defendant operated a cleaning and pressing business at 1012 East Twelfth street, in Kansas City. With him lived his wife and two stepchildren at said address. The business was conducted in the front part of the store, the family having their living quarters behind a partition in the rear thereof. Between the 18th and 21st of June, 1926, the residence of L. B. Ely in Kansas City was burglarized, taking a quantity of clothing the property of Ely of the value of more than $ 30. He reported the fact to the police department. Defendant's establishment on June 21st was under the surveillance of two police officers. They observed, from a position in the rear of the store, through curtains, a woman and two men looking over an assorted pile of clothing. Entering the store they found one of the men gone, but in looking over the clothing identified some of the goods reported as having been stolen. They arrested defendant and his wife, taking them to police headquarters. They were released and returned to the store. Some one thereupon telephoned one of the officers about 8 o'clock on that night to examine room No. 4 at 1010 East Twelfth street, whereupon he went to defendant's place of business, asked for the key to the room, and, upon being told by the defendant that the key was misplaced, the officers obtained a hatchet and knocked off the padlock to the door of room No. 4. Upon obtaining entrance there was found clothing of more than $ 30 in value belonging to Ely and also clothing of his wife, together with a large amount of other clothing identified as the property of about thirty-five other people whose homes had been similarly burglarized. The clothing was returned to the respective owners upon identification.

It seems that one Peter B. Sutton, a drug addict, who had theretofore served a term in the penitentiary for burglary, burglarized the home of Ely, who with his wife was on a vacation, as well as other homes. Sutton testified at the trial that he brought the clothing to defendant's cleaning establishment, laying it on the bed and walking out, telling them he would return for it. While Sutton testified that there was no sale or anything of that sort with respect to the goods he stole from Mr. and Mrs. Ely, he stated that he merely got $ 12 from the defendant and was to get $ 25 more that night. In answer to the question, 'Is it true he gave you $ 12 for this lot and was to give you $ 25 more, speaking of the Ely and Winter's goods you brought in?' Sutton answered, 'It is true I received money for them, yes, sir.' He stated he was to get $ 25 more for the Ely and Winter's clothing. The evidence further tends to show that room No. 4 next door was rented by defendant's wife, and that defendant was found at the time of his first arrest with the key in his possession.

Defendant's evidence tends to show that his wife rented room No. 4 at his suggestion; that Sutton, who had been bringing things to his establishment to be cleaned, told him he was about to remove from the place where he was staying, and that he wanted some place to store his goods. Defendant told him that he did not have room for their storage in his establishment, but suggested that he had a room in the place next door which he could use; that he thereupon gave the key to Sutton and did not know what Sutton placed in the room, if anything. However, he admitted that at the time of his first arrest he had the key to the padlock on the door. Such other facts as are pertinent will be later stated.

I.We have examined the record proper, included in which are the indictment, the verdict, and the judgment, and find it sufficient in form and substance. The indictment follows as near as may be its counterpart set forth in State v. Batterson (Mo. Sup.) 274 S.W. 43.

II.In his motion for a new trial defendant assigns as error generally the rejection of competent, relevant, and material evidence, and the giving of improper instructions on the part of the defendant. We have ruled in State v. Standifer (Mo. Sup.) 289 S.W. 856, and State v. Murrell (Mo. Sup.) 289 S.W. 859, construing section 4079, Revised Statutes 1919, as amended by Laws 1925, p. 198, that these assignments of error in the motion for a new trial are of insufficient substance to raise the questions intended.

III.Returning to the motion for a new trial, we find four assignments which raise alleged errors requiring our notice. The first relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

In determining the question, certain rules of law are applicable in view of the record. After the overruling of the demurrer to the evidence at the close of the state's case, defendant went forward introducing evidence. This state of the record requires us to look to whole evidence introduced to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. State v. Bigley (Mo. Sup.) 247 S.W. 169. For this purpose the state's evidence and such of defendant's evidence as tends to show his guilt are taken as true. State v. Schaeffer (Mo. App.) 273 S.W. 247. Therefore, if either the state's or defendant's evidence shows substantial evidence of guilt, the demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. State v. Turner (Mo. Sup.) 274 S.W. 35.

The gravamen of the offense is the receiving of stolen goods by the defendant, knowing them to have been stolen. No one can doubt the sufficiency of the evidence relative to the fact that the goods were stolen from Ely. Sutton testified that he burglarized Ely's home, taking the goods. There is also no doubt of the proof that Sutton took the goods to defendant's place of business, and that defendant advanced him $ 12 on the goods and agreed to give him that night $ 25 more for them. The evidence then tends to show that defendant received goods taken from Ely's home of the value of more than $ 250, and that he paid or promised to pay the...