State v. Snyder
| Decision Date | 23 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 18628.,18628. |
| Citation | 263 Mo. 664,173 S.W. 1078 |
| Parties | STATE v. SNYDER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; Ralph S. Latshaw, Judge.
Arch G. Snyder, alias Frank Kelly, was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Defendant, sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 20 years, on conviction of being an accessory before the fact to the crime of burglary with explosives, after the usual procedure, appeals. The facts in this case, as disclosed by the record, are that defendant and three others agreed to burglarize Munger's Laundry in Kansas City and blow the safe therein. King and Magglet, two of such others, raised a window, which was closed, entered the building in which the laundry was operated, and began boring into the safe with a brace and steel-cutting bit, while defendant and another, one Stanton, the remaining one of the quartette, stood watch outside on the street. While King and Magglet were inside of the building boring into the safe preparatory to exploding it with gunpowder, a police officer came along the street, approaching the front of the laundry, whereupon defendant backed up to the window of the laundry and tapped thereon three times. He also tapped, or stamped, three times upon the sidewalk with his foot. Defendant and said Stanton were taken into custody shortly after this by the officers. Upon examination of the premises alleged to have been burglarized, a set of burglar's tools, an implement called a "jimmy," a revolver, a piece of fuse, and some gunpowder were found in and about the building, a part of these articles near the safe, which was found to have the outer casing bored completely through into the asbestos filling. The proof shows that the windows of the laundry were closed when the employés thereof left the building on the previous evening. The proof as to whether they were locked was not clear, but one window appeared, as the witness' expressed it, "to have been jimmied," and the lock thereon broken. Stanton, the accomplice of defendant, and one Brown (both of whom admitted they were ex-convicts, and one of whom was an escaped convict) both testified touching defendant's connection with this burglary. The witness Brown testified that he was present at a meeting of King, Magglet, Stanton, and defendant, at which it was agreed to burglarize this laundry. The witness Stanton testified positively that defendant and he were stationed outside of the building, pursuant to agreement, to watch for officers and to give the alarm, while King and Maglett entered the building and blew the safe. Defendant himself admitted his presence at the place where the other witnesses placed him, to wit, upon the street in front of the burglarized building, but he explains his presence there by saying that he had been to visit his sister in another part of town, and on returning toward his lodging place had stopped in front of this building to catch a car. As to his visiting his sister he is corroborated by her and by another sister who testified for him. Further details of evidence, if they shall become necessary, will be referred to and set out in the subjoined opinion.
Loyd Martz, of Kansas City, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen. (S. P. Howell, of Jefferson City, of counsel), for the State.
FARIS, P. J. (after stating the facts as above).
Defendant is not represented in this court by counsel, so we are compelled, guided by his motion for a new trial, to examine the whole record for error.
He complains that the verdict is unreasonable, and that such unreasonableness indicates passion and prejudice. There appears upon the record no reason whatever for the existence of passion or prejudice on the jury's part. The record is singularly free from any inflammatory argument by counsel for the state. The punishment inflicted by the verdict of the jury is admittedly severe, but it yet falls five years short of the maximum punishment prescribed by the statute for the offense of which defendant was convicted. Section 4526 and section 4527, R. S. 1909. Since, therefore, there are no indications...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mills
...the case is insufficient. Appellant must point out specifically in his motion for new trial wherein the court failed to instruct. State v. Snyder, 263 Mo. 668; State Kretschman, 232 Mo. 29; State v. West, 202 Mo. 128; State v. Connors, 245 Mo. 477; State v. McGarver, 194 Mo. 742; State v. D......
-
The State v. Ellis
... ... objections that should have been excluded. In view of the ... fact that appellant did not except to the court's adverse ... ruling, save in a few instances, the greater part of such ... matter is not before this court for review. [State v ... Snyder, 173 S.W. 1078, 263 Mo. 664; State v ... Fields, 170 S.W. 1132, 262 Mo. 158.] ... Again ... where appellant saved his exceptions to the adverse rulings ... of the court on the admission of testimony, he should have ... pointed out in his motion for a new trial the particular ... ...
-
The State v. Burrell
...for a new trial, must specify upon what point the court failed to instruct. [State v. Harris, 245 Mo. 445, 150 S.W. 1040; State v. Snyder, 263 Mo. 664, 173 S.W. 1078; State v. Taylor, 267 Mo. 41, 183 S.W. In State v. Douglas, 258 Mo. 281, 167 S.W. 552, the court held the point saved, where ......
-
State v. Oertel
...97 Mo. 679, 11 S.W. 260; State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628, 14 S.W. 4; State v. Concelia, 250 Mo. 411, 424-5, 157 S.W. 778; State v. Snyder, 263 Mo. 664, 173 S.W. 1078; State v. Miller, 264 Mo. 441, 175 S.W. State v. Looney, 204 S.W. 25.] The record of defendant's former conviction of a felony s......