State v. Weidlich, 43904
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; LEEDY, Acting P. J., and DEW and STONE |
| Citation | 269 S.W.2d 69 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEIDLICH |
| Docket Number | No. 43904,No. 2,43904,2 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1954 |
Page 69
v.
WEIDLICH.
J. K. Owens, Kansas City, and H. K. West, Brookfield, for appellant.
Page 70
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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keaton v. State
...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, 96-KA-1687.
...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), noted that suf......
-
State v. Brookshire
...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, 11651.
...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......