State v. Weidlich

Decision Date14 June 1954
Docket NumberNo. 43904,No. 2,43904,2
Citation269 S.W.2d 69
PartiesSTATE v. WEIDLICH
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

J. K. Owens, Kansas City, and H. K. West, Brookfield, for appellant.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Winston Cook, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BARRETT, Commissioner.

In separate verdicts a jury has found the appellant, Harold Weidlich, guilty of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny and fixed his punishment at four years' imprisonment. This is a companion case to State v. Hayzlett, Mo.Sup., 265 S.W.2d 321, and the facts concerning the burglary of Ryther's clothing store and the larceny of a quantity of men's wearing apparel and luggage and the apprehension and detection of Hayzlett and Weidlich in connection with the offense are set forth in that case. Harold worked in Ryther's store while attending high school and was well known in Macon. In this case there can be no question as to the sufficiency of the evidence, clearly establishing the guilt of both Hayzlett and Harold, if Harold's detailed, thirty-one page, written confession was properly admitted in evidence.

Apparently with some justifiable pride in his superior memory, Harold dictated the statement with very little prompting from his custodial officers. The statement begins with his first meeting with Hayzlett in 1946, Hayzlett's troubles with his mentally ill wife, Harold's and Hayzlett's venture into the business of selling tools, Harold's realization that a large part of the tools in the store were stolen merchandise, and finally his knowledge of Hayzlett's past prison record and Hayzlett's 'approaching him' with the proposition of burglarizing a store or stores outside the Kansas City area for the purpose of financing their own venture. In the end they settled on Ryther's store in Macon where Harold had worked and was familiar with the surroundings. They made a trip to Macon for the purpose of 'casing the place,' and on Saturday night, December 23rd, they again left Kansas City in Hayzlett's car, drove to Macon, and burglarized the store. In his statement Harold identified and described all the tools employed in the burglary, including a special, experimental 'spider-legged affair' Hayzlett made at a machine shop, designed to pull the knob or combination from a safe. He described the burglary in detail, the failure of the experimental tool 'because the puller jaws were too short,' and their inability to open the safe, their careful selection of suits and topcoats of the correct sizes, luggage, socks, handkerchiefs, 'T' shirts and other apparel. He described their belated exit from the store, their meeting and waving to Mr. Hamilton, the night policeman, as they drove out of the alley. He detailed their return trip to Kansas City to 3420 Campbell where Harold and his mother were living and Hayzlett was staying, the division of the loot, which he precisely identified, the storage of the loot and some of the burglar tools in his mother's home and finally their arrest.

Harold admitted that he gave the statement, made several corrections, initialed the pages, and signed it, but he claims that the statement did not set forth the truth, and was given because of promises by the prosecuting attorney and deputy sheriff that he would not be prosecuted if he gave a statement 'involving' himself and Hayzlett and because of fear of threats of physical violence by detectives and threats by highway patrolmen and police to arrest his mother. There was a full hearing and preliminary determination by the court that the confession was not involuntary. State v. Di Stefano, Mo.Sup., 152 S.W.2d 20. Harold's testimony, before the jury, tended to prove that the confession was the result of promises and duress. The state's witnesses, the prosecuting attorney, the deputy sheriff, the detectives, the highway patrolmen, in fact all the officers who had some part in Harold's arrest and the taking of his statement, testified that there were no promises, threats or coercion and that the confession was voluntary. There was an instruction upon the subject of the voluntariness of the confession and there are circumstances in the statement itself cogently corroborative of the state's claim and the jury's finding. In these circumstances the statement or confession was properly admitted in evidence. State v. Gibilterra, 342 Mo. 577 583-585, 116 S.W.2d 88, 93-94; State v. Pillow, Mo.Sup., 169 S.W.2d 414; State v. Johnson, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W. 623; State v. Stebbins, 188 Mo. 387, 87 S.W. 460.

Once the confession is found to be voluntary and properly admitted in evidence, there can be no question as to the admissibility of the thirty exhibits, the tools employed in the burglary, the sawed window bar, the various items taken from Ryther's store and certain objects found in the store and identified by others, particularly as against the objection that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Keaton v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 December 2021
    ...the challenge of the entire panel" '" (quoting State v. Williams, 630 S.W.2d 117, 119 (Mo. App. 1981), quoting in turn State v. Weidlich, 269 S.W.2d 69, 71 (Mo.1954))). B. Keaton alleges that the State violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), by using its peremptory strikes in a rac......
  • State v. Lucky
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 13 April 1999
    ...a sufficient ground for the challenge of the entire panel." State v. Williams, 630 S.W.2d 117, 119 (Mo.App. 1981) (quoting State v. Weidlich, 269 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.1954) and citing other cases). On the other hand, the court in Callaway v. State, 208 Ga.App. 508, 431 S.E.2d 143, 145-46 (1993), n......
  • State v. Brookshire
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 8 January 1962
    ...to excuse veniremen concerning whom there was any question and to admonish the panel on proper occasions. We find no error. State v. Weidlich, Mo., 269 S.W.2d 69, 71; State v. Taylor, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 643, 648[9-11], 76 A.L.R.2d VI. Defendant contends his motion for a judgment of acquittal s......
  • State v. Hutchens
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 25 August 1980
    ...sufficient grounds for a challenge of the entire panel. State v. Butler, 549 S.W.2d 578, 5802 (Mo.App.1977). See also State v. Weidlich, 269 S.W.2d 69, 714 (Mo.1954). When defendant's unverified motion was presented to the court for ruling, no evidence was offered in support of it.2 The mot......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 29.15 Preservation of Error for Appellate Review
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Criminal Practice Deskbook Chapter 29 Appeals
    • Invalid date
    ...the statements of counsel. State v. Neal, 476 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. banc 1972); State v. Abbott, 236 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. 1951); State v. Weidlich, 269 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. 1954). · Any motion to suppress evidence or quash warrants must be included in the record along with a transcript of the evidentiary he......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT