State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 31 January 1867
• Citation: 39 Mo. 424
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. JACOB SCOTT, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

39 Mo. 424

STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant,

v.JACOB SCOTT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1867.

Appeal from Barry Circuit Court.

The first count charged the defendant with a larceny by violence to the person of one William Jones. The second count charged the defendant with making a felonious assault upon the person of one William Jones, and putting the said Jones in fear of some immediate injury to his per son, and taking the property of said Jones from his person and against his will, &c. The third count charged a larceny by taking the property from the person of said Jones, by putting him in fear, &c., but did not charge any felonious assault.

Attorney General, for appellant.

FAGG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

At the March term, 1866, of the Barry Circuit Court, the respondent was indicted and put upon his trial for robbery in the first degree. The indictment charges simply one offence, but contains three counts, varying the statement of it in each one of them. It is drawn under the provisions of § 20, art. 3, ch. 50, R. C. 1855, and charges the respondent with forcibly taking a mare, saddle and one pair of saddlebags from one William Jones, on the public highway, against his will, &c. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the State penitentiary for a period of ten years. Respondent filed his motion for a new trial and also in arrest of judgment. The first was overruled; but the latter being sustained by the court below, the case is brought here by appeal taken on the part of the State.

The following state of case appears from the facts as developed by the testimony. In the month of June, 1865, the prisoner Scott was seen and recognized by the principal witness riding along a public road, in the county of Barry, in company with an old man who gave his name as William Jones, and who stated that he was a resident of Red River country in the State of Texas. The prisoner Scott was a soldier, and stated that he was then on his way to Fort Scott to join his command. Witness traveled with them some distance, and when about to separate from them says that “the prisoner then said to him (Jones) it was strange that he could come from there alone, when a soldier could not travel without being shot at.” Speaking to witness, he said further in a tone loud enough to be heard, as the witness thinks, by the old man--he said, “I expect to get into a fuss with this old man and take his horse from him.” In the afternoon of the same day, witness again met with the prisoner riding the mare, and having the saddle and saddle-bags, all of which were identified as having been in the possession of Jones at the time that witness separated from them. The prisoner then told this witness that “he had got into a fuss with the old man and had jayhawked his mare.” Two other witnesses testified that the prisoner had at different times told them that “he had taken a mare from an old man on the Springfield road.”

Upon this state of facts, the question arises as to whether there was sufficient proof of the corpus delicti to sustain the...