State v. Stephens

• Citation: 216 S.W. 550
• Decision Date: 01 December 1919
• Docket Number: No. 13380.,13380.
• Parties: STATE v. STEPHENS.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

216 S.W. 550

STATE v. STEPHENS.

No. 13380.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 1, 1919.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Benton County; C. A. Calvird, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

R. A. Stephens was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Affirmed.

T. C. Owen, of Warsaw, and C. C. Kelly, of Sedalia, for appellant.

D. Brunjes, of Warsaw, for the State.

TRIMBLE, J.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of and fined for an alleged sale of intoxicating liquor; and from a judgment on the verdict he has appealed.

The matters of which defendant complains, and for which he seeks a reversal, relate to the conduct of the trial judge during the examination of witnesses, and of the prosecuting attorney in the course of his argument.

It is claimed that the court manifested great impatience with the defendant's attack upon the general reputation of the prosecuting witness, asking questions of witnesses and commenting upon their testimony in a manner which plainly showed the court did not believe them, and thought the prosecuting witness' reputation was good. We have carefully read the record, and find that it fails to sustain such a serious charge. If impatience was shown, it does not appear in the record or in the language used by the court. Nor did the court indicate in any way what it thought of the impeaching witness' testimony or of the reputation of the prosecuting witness. One of the instances cited in support of such complaint occurred during the examination of a witness who was a member of the city council of Sedalia. He testified that the reputation of the prosecuting witness was bad in that community, and then disclosed that the prosecuting witness had been, until recently, a member of the police force of that city. Toward the close of the witness' testimony the court asked him if the council of that city appointed the prosecuting witness to the police force, and the witness said it did. The court then asked the witness if the latter knew how the appointment came to be made if the appointee bore a bad reputation. The witness replied he knew of no particular reason for it. The court then asked if the council had the same means of knowing the appointee's reputation as he, the witness, did, to which the latter replied by saying he did not know whether they did or not. The court then asked if the appointee had been on the force "until here lately," and the witness answered "Yes." We see no reason why the court should not in proper manner ask the questions above set out. But, however this may be, the defendant cannot rely upon them, since the record does not show any objection made or exception saved thereto.

Another witness, who said that he had suggested the prosecuting witness to the prosecuting attorney as a good' man to help him ferret out liquor violations, swore that the prosecuting witness' reputation was bad' in Sedalia; and the court asked him what was his purpose in suggesting to the prosecutor a man whose reputation was bad. The witness replied that at that time he bore a good reputation, but that his bad reputation had arisen since then. "By the Court: So he has acquired that since that." To this last remark counsel for defendant for the first time said: "We except to the remarks...