State v. Tucker

• Decision Date: 23 May 1911
• Citation: 137 S.W. 870,234 Mo. 554
• Parties: STATE v. TUCKER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

137 S.W. 870

234 Mo. 554

STATE v. TUCKER.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

May 23, 1911.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 402)—PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF ACCUSED— NOTICE.

Accused cannot be compelled to produce documents in his possession which tend to establish his guilt, but he may assume that parol evidence of the contents of such documents will not be offered without giving him a reasonable opportunity to produce the same where he believes it may tend to establish his innocence.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 402)—SECONDARY EVIDENCE—BURDEN OF PROOF.

The burden of proving the loss or destruction of a written document rests on the party seeking to introduce secondary evidence of its contents.

3. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 402)—PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT IN POSSESSION OF ACCUSED — NOTICE—SUFFICIENCY.

Accused on trial for forgery resided 100 miles from the place of trial, and the place of the alleged forgery was several miles from the place of trial. It required accused a day to reach the place of trial from his home. At 1:30 p. m. on the day before the trial he was served at the place of trial with a written notice to produce the alleged forged instrument. Held, that the notice was not served a sufficient time before trial to warrant the admission of parol evidence of the contents of the instrument, because if the instrument was at his residence he could not procure it, and if the instrument was destroyed he could not procure witnesses to prove its contents.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

D. M. Tucker was convicted of forgery in the fourth degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Pulaski county, sentencing him to serve a term of two years in the penitentiary, for the crime of forgery in the fourth degree. The evidence shows that on September 9, 1907, the defendant delivered to the People's Bank of Dixon, Mo., a promissory note for the principal sum of $500, which note purported to be executed by the defendant as principal, and J. E. Ross, J. D. Thomas, and G. W. Maze as sureties, and payable to said People's Bank one year after the date thereof. The indictment alleged that the signatures of Ross, Thomas, and Maze had been forged to this note. There was some evidence of this alleged forgery, and also some evidence that all the signatures to the note were genuine.

Defendant who was tried in Waynesville, in Pulaski county, on September 20, 1910, resided in Green county, about 100 miles distant from the place of trial. He left home on Sunday morning to attend the trial, and from the nature of the route, it required nearly a whole day to reach Waynesville. At 1:30 p. m. on Monday defendant was served at Waynesville with a written notice to produce at the trial the alleged forged note. The indictment charges, and the evidence proves, that this...