State v. Thavanot

• Citation: 225 Mo. 545,125 S.W. 473
• Parties: STATE v. THAVANOT.
• Decision Date: 12 February 1910
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

125 S.W. 473

225 Mo. 545

STATE v. THAVANOT.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

February 12, 1910.

1. ELECTIONS (§ 329) — OFFENSES — FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION — EVIDENCE.

The secretary of the board of election commissioners may testify to the fact that there was a general registration of voters in the city on the date alleged in an indictment for fraudulent registration.

2. ELECTIONS (§ 329) — OFFENSES — FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION — EVIDENCE.

Evidence held to show that the place of registration was within the voting precinct where the accused was alleged to have falsely registered, though the contract for the use of the place was excluded.

3. ARREST (§ 70) — CUSTODY.

It is improper for the state's counsel to have one who is under arrest brought from the place of arrest to counsel's office unless the person desires a conference.

4. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1166) — REVIEW — HARMLESS ERROR.

That accused was brought from the place of his arrest to the prosecuting attorney's office is not ground for reversal where it does not appear that any injury resulted therefrom.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 723) — TRIAL — ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL.

A remark by the state's counsel in a prosecution for falsely registering that "one who steals your vote is worse than a thief" is beyond the scope of legitimate argument.

6. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1064) — RECORD — REMARKS OF COUNSEL.

Error in allowing improper remarks of counsel cannot be considered on appeal unless the matter is preserved in the motion for new trial.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Geo. H. Shields, Judge.

Arthur Thavanot was convicted of fraudulent registration, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. Orrick Bishop, for appellant. E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jno. M. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

By indictment duly lodged by the grand jury of the city of St. Louis, the defendant stands charged with falsely registering under a name other than his own, in violation of section 2120j, Laws 1903, p. 158. Learned counsel for the defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the indictment, and further note thereof need not be made.

From the evidence it appears that on the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th days of September 1908, there was a general registration of voters in the city of St. Louis, duly held in pursuance of the statutes of this state. Defendant, who by the evidence is shown to be Arthur Thavanot, and a resident of the Sixth election precinct of the Fifteenth ward, appeared in company with another voter at the Tenth election precinct of the Fifteenth ward, at about 4 o'clock of the afternoon of September 14th, and there being duly sworn to answer questions as to his qualifications as a voter in said voting precinct, in answer to such questions, stated that his name was Sam Alberts, and that his address was 2100 Olive street. The proof shows that the defendant in fact lived at 1004 North Eighteenth street, and had registered on the morning of that day in the Sixth precinct of the Fifteenth ward, under his proper name. In other words, the evidence shows that his name is as charged in the indictment, and was not Sam Alberts. The evidence shows that he was a resident of the Sixth precinct of the ward, instead of the Tenth precinct. We say that the proof shows these facts, for such is the evidence in behalf of the state, and defendant contents himself with resting upon a demurrer to the evidence as offered by the state. The questions in this case are practically all settled by the recent cases of State v. Tiernan, 122 S. W. 728, State v. Keating, 122 S. W. 699, and State v. Exnicious (not yet officially reported) 122 S. W. 730.

It is urged in this case, as it was in some of the others, supra, that there was error in permitting John Ellspermann, secretary of the board of election commissioners, to testify to the fact that a general registration of voters in all of the wards and voting precincts thereof was being held on September 14th and the three succeeding days. This point was...