State v. Steinkraus

• Decision Date: 20 June 1912
• Parties: THE STATE v. GUSTAV F. STEINKRAUS, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

148 S.W. 877

244 Mo. 152

THE STATE v. GUSTAV F. STEINKRAUS, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

June 20, 1912

Appeal from Moniteau Circuit Court. -- Hon. John M. Williams, Judge.

Affirmed.

W. F Quigley, and Jeffries & Corum for appellant.

(1) The demurrer ought to have been sustained. There was no evidence that Steinkraus ever applied for a policy of insurance on his building; no evidence that he paid the premium on said policy; no evidence of the delivery of said policy to him and no evidence that he knew of the issuance of any such policy, if one were issued. Martin v. State, 28 Ala 82. (2) The allegation having been made that the Niagara Fire Insurance Company was a corporation, and such allegation being essential, it then devolved upon the State to offer some proof of the de facto existence of that company as a corporation. No such proof was offered. But such proof was absolutely essential to sustain the charge of the information. State v. Harned, 178 Mo. 61; State v. Clark, 223 Mo. 50; Rhode Island v. Murphy, 16 L.R.A. 550; State v. Ahsam, 41 Cal. 645; R. S. 1909, Sec. 5238. (3) The trial court permitted witnesses to testify on behalf of the State that they saw the defendant after the explosion and that he made no declaration to them concerning it. These witnesses did not charge the defendant with the commission of any crime. No person made such an accusation against him in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant was not called upon to speak, and yet his silence was permitted to go to the jury as evidence of a confession of guilt. (4) Assuming that the jury did, as they must necessarily have, disregarded the testimony of the defendant and his co-defendant, Greer, to the effect that the explosion was accidental, then the evidence remaining is entirely circumstantial, and the court should have instructed the jury upon circumstantial evidence. State v. Crone, 209 Mo. 330; State v. Moxley, 102 Mo. 374.

Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, and John M. Dawson, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

The appellant was given a fair and impartial trial. The jury settled the conflict in the evidence. Appellant admitted being at the place at the time of the fire. Instruction 11 put the question direct to the jury as to whether or not the fire was an accident as claimed by the appellant, and, if it was, to acquit. It is readily observed why the jury did not acquit, because if the appellant and his codefendant were telling the truth as to the fire being an accident they would have staid there and tried to have extinguished it, but instead made their escape, his codefendant leaving his "little finger," and, also, his hat as a clew to his identity.

BROWN, P. J. Ferriss and Kennish, JJ., concur.

OPINION

BROWN, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of arson on September 8, 1911; and appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Moniteau county fixing his punishment at two years in the penitentiary.

Defendant and one David K. Greer were jointly charged with arson in the third degree by setting fire to a small wooden building belonging to the defendant in the city of Tipton, Missouri, with intent to defraud the Niagara Insurance Company, a corporation. They were tried separately.

The following is a summary of the evidence:

Defendant and Greer were intimate friends, and both resided at Tipton with their families. Defendant kept a shoe store in the building he is charged with burning, and Greer kept a desk there and made the shop his headquarters when not on the road purchasing furs, hides, etc.

The building was insured in the Niagara Insurance Company for $ 300. The contents of the building were insured in another company. On March 23, 1910, defendant purchased two gallons of gasoline, and took the same to his shoe shop. He and Greer were seen about the saloons of Tipton until late that night, and appeared to be drinking heavily.

About 3:30 the following morning, March 24, 1910, an explosion took place in defendant's shoe shop, blowing one end thereof loose from the sills and enveloping the interior of said building in flames.

When the explosion occurred, defendant ran from the building, and did not return until long after the fire had been extinguished by citizens of the town, who were aroused by the ringing of the fire bell. It does not appear that defendant was injured by the explosion or had any cause for running away and neglecting to assist in putting out the fire which he had caused.

An employee of a livery stable, who was near defendant's building, saw a man running from the building just after the explosion, and called loudly to him several times to ring the fire bell; but the party running paid no attention to his request.

When the fire was extinguished, a gallon jug one-third full of coal oil, a two-gallon jug two-thirds full of gasoline, and several sacks and papers saturated with coal oil or gasoline, were found in defendant's building. Some of the papers were rolled up in such form as to indicate an intention to use them as a torch.

Defendant testified that he accidentally produced the explosion and fire by dropping a lighted match on the floor where gasoline had been spilled; that he kept gasoline at his shop for use in preparing lamp black for sign painting, and kept the coal oil for use in a lamp in the shop. He admitted running away when the explosion occurred; and as an excuse for not returning to assist in putting out the fire, claims he was taking care of Greer, whose hand was injured by the explosion.

Greer (indicted with defendant) testified that he and defendant remained up late that night to meet the former's wife, whom they expected to return home on a night train. That they went to defendant's shop at 3:30 a. m. to drink some whiskey which had been left there. That after taking a drink, he (Greer) went out the back door to attend a call of nature, and in going out, accidentally upset a can of gasoline. At about the time he returned, defendant struck a match to light his pipe and threw the match to the floor, whereupon a loud explosion occurred which blew him (Greer) out the back door and blew the door shut with such force as to strike and amputate his little finger.

Greer's evidence was partly corroborated by the finding of his finger inside the building and his hat just outside.

Some joists of defendant's building were charred and partly burned by the fire.

Such other points as are necessary to an understanding of the case will be noted in our opinion.

For reversal, defendant contends:

(1). That there was no evidence that the defendant ever applied for or received a policy of insurance on the building.

(2). That there was no proof that the Niagara Insurance Company was a corporation.

(3). That the evidence of defendant's silence regarding the cause of the fire in his building was improperly admitted.

(4). That the instructions for the State were erroneous in not requiring the jury to find that the Niagara Insurance Company was a corporation.

(5). That the court failed to instruct on the legal effect of circumstantial evidence.

I. Defendant's first contention is not sustained by the evidence. Mace L. Minor, an insurance agent, testified on behalf of the State that while working for one Roy F. Bane the regular agent of the Niagara Insurance Company, he wrote a policy of insurance on defendant's building, and handed the same to Bane for delivery to defendant. It seems that Minor signed the name of Bane to the policy, but that is a matter of no consequence, as will appear...