State v. Small
| Decision Date | 12 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 52908,52908,1 |
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 750 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George Henry SMALL, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Frederick E. Steck, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Sikeston, for respondent.
George J. Jeggle, St. Louis, for appellant.
The defendant George Henry Small was convicted of the offense of illegal possession of Dextroamphetamine Sulphate, designated as a stimulant drug by the Missouri State Division of Health, pursuant to § 195.230, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. Since the defendant had been convicted of a prior felony, punishment was assessed by the court and the defendant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Sections 195.270 and 556.280. He appealed from the judgment of conviction.
The defendant rests his appeal upon his statement of facts which we have construed to mean that he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. State v. Patton Mo., 412 S.W.2d 154, 155(1). This is the only issue presented.
The evidence of the state tended to prove that on November 11, 1966, at about 8:30 p.m., two patrolmen of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, James Ketterman and Terry Schell, stopped their patrol car at the northeast corner of Sarah and Olive Streets in St. Louis where the defendant and four other Negro men were standing. Patrolman Schell was driving and Patrolman Ketterman was on the right side of the front seat. As the patrol car stopped at the curb on Sarah Street, the men 'scattered' in different directions. The defendant, who was on the sidewalk about six feet from Patrolman Ketterman, took a white box from the right pocket of his blue and white sports jacket and dropped it to the sidewalk as he started to walk north on Sarah Street. Patrolman Ketterman retrieved the box, looked at it and saw that it contained what appeared to be a stimulant drug. He pursued the defendant and apprehended him about ten to fifteen feet from the place where the box had been dropped. The corner in question was illuminated by street lights. As the officers arrived at the corner the defendant was standing with his back and right side toward them. Both officers saw the defendant take the box from his pocket and drop it.
At the trial Patrolman Ketterman identified the box and the six foil packages of yellow powder it contained as the object he saw the defendant take from his pocket and drop and as that which the officer picked up from the sidewalk. He delivered the box and packages to Robert Seto, a chemist for the police department on November 12, 1966. Mr. Seto testified that he made a chemical analysis of the yellow powder and found it to be Dextroamphetamine Sulphate which is a stimulant drug.
The defendant was the only witness in his behalf. He testified he had been convicted in Missouri of stealing a motor vehicle valued at more than $50 and had been convicted in Illinois on these counts of armed robbery. He had no previous drug conviction. On the night in question he was standing by a parked car on Olive Street near Sarah eating a polish sausage sandwich and drinking a coke which he had purchased at a nearby restaurant. No one was standing near him, but there were other people moving on the street. A patrol car stopped on Sarah Street and a police officer got out and called to him. He put down his sandwich and drink and went toward the policeman who told the defendant 'don't go near year pocket' and placed him under arrest. The defendant denied that he took anything out of his pocket and dropped it. The defendant requested a directed verdict of acquittal at the end of the state's case and again at the close of all the evidence. Both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chester
...272, 274(2); State v. Williams, Mo., 376 S.W.2d 133, 136(10)) and are not within the purview of our appellate review. State v. Small, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 750, 751(2); State v. Hampton, Mo. (banc), 275 S.W.2d 356, The triers of the facts were privileged to accept the testimony of Trooper Dalton,......
-
State v. Berry
...It is not the function of this court to determine the credibility of the witnesses or to weigh the evidence. State v. Small, 423 S.W.2d 750, 751(2) (Mo.1968). The effects of conflicts or inconsistencies in any testimony are questions for the jury. State v. Turnbough, 497 S.W.2d 856, 858(5) ......
-
State v. Chunn
...more than an invitation to us to make our own assessment of the credibility of Hatley's testimony. That is not our role. State v. Small, 423 S.W.2d 750, 751 (Mo.1968); State v. Williams, 376 S.W.2d 133, 136 (Mo.1964). The credibility of Hatley and the weight and value to be given his testim......
-
State v. Hicks
...is against the weight of the evidence is a matter addressed solely to the trial court and is not reviewable on appeal. State v. Small, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 750, 751(3); State v. Thomas, Mo., 393 S.W.2d 533, The defendant and others testified that Muncher was known to have a reputation for turbul......