State v. Stubblefield
| Decision Date | 12 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 42858,42858,1 |
| Citation | 248 S.W.2d 665 |
| Parties | STATE v. STUBBLEFIELD |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Enid Clay Stubblefield, pro se.
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Gordon P. Weir, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This case comes here upon a writ of error. On March 2, 1951, plaintiff in error (hereinafter called defendant) upon a plea of guilty was sentenced in the circuit court of Newton County to the penitentiary for two years upon a charge of burglary and two years upon a charge of larceny, a total of four years. This writ brings but the single question of the sufficiency of the information as to the burglary charge. Defendant now asks 'that said cause be reversed as to the burglary conviction for the reason that said information is fatally defective and will not support a judgment, and in addition thereto that said sentence be corrected by this court'. Defendant has not attacked the judgment of conviction as to larceny.
The information attacked is in one count, as authorized by Section 560.110 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. and is in these words:
'John M. Rice, Prosecuting Attorney within and for the County of Newton in the State of Missouri, informs the Court that Enid Clay Stubblefield on the 4th day of December, 1950, at the said County of Newton did then and there unlawfully, willfully, feloniously and burglariously break into and enter the garage building of the W. L. Bond Motor Company, the same being a building in which divers goods, merchandise, and valuable things were then and there kept and deposited with intent the goods, chattels and personal property to take, steal and carry away, and $15.00 lawful money of the United States of the goods, chattels and personal property of W. L. Bond and Fred Bond, co-partners, doing business as W. L. Bond Motor Company then and there in said building being found unlawfully, willfully and feloniously, did steal, take and carry away against the peace and dignity of the State.'
Specifically, defendant contends the above information 'is fatally defective and insufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary for the reason that nowhere is it alleged that the said W. L. Bond Motor Company was a co-partnership, a corporation, or individual'; and says that the 'charging part of the information lacks the magic words showing the ownership of the building supposedly entered into'. Defendant relies on State v. Jones, 168 Mo. 398, 68 S.W. 566, State v. Kelley, 206 Mo. 685, 405 S.W. 606 and State v. Henschel, 250 Mo. 263, 157 S.W. 311.
But the Jones, Kelley and Henschel cases, supra, relied on by defendant have been expressly overruled. See, State v. Carson, 323 Mo. 46, 18 S.W.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zammar
...344 Mo. 74, 124 S.W.2d 1089; State v. Quinn, 345 Mo. 855, 136 S.W.2d 985; State v. Dowling, 360 Mo. 746, 230 S.W.2d 691; State v. Stubblefield, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 665. The latest pronouncement on the subject is the last-mentioned case, where the single question was as to the sufficiency of the......
-
State v. Sims, 51099
...of his guilt.' See also State v. Parker, 324 Mo. 734, 24 S.W.2d 1023; State v. Dowling, 360 Mo. 746, 230 S.W.2d 691; State v. Stubblefield, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 665; State v. Zammar, Mo.Sup., 305 S.W.2d 441; State v. Stuver, Mo.Sup., 360 S.W.2d 89. Likewise, defendants' guilt of the crimes c......
-
State v. Ford, 51877
...of the Odell's, Inc.,' State v. Carey, supra, 1 S.W.2d 143; 'the garage building of the W.L. Bond Motor Company,' State v. Stubblefield, Mo.Sup., 248 S.W.2d 665, 666; 'the A. & N. Hardware Store, the property of Lloyd Norris and Vivion Anderson,' State v. Zammar, supra, 305 S.W.2d 441, 442;......
-
State v. Eaton, 51369
...here raised. See State v. Zammar, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 441, 442[1, 2], citing other cases on the subject the last of which is State v. Stubblefield, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 665, in which the court denied the same contention there and here made. In the Stubblefield and Zammar cases the court quoted appro......