State v. Weisman
| Decision Date | 01 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 22194.,22194. |
| Citation | 225 S.W. 949 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEISMAN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.
Louis Weisman was convicted of receiving stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Thos. J. Rowe, Jr., of St. Louis, for appellant.
Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and Henry B: Hunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was tried in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis February 24, 1919, was convicted of receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of section 4554, R. S. 1909, and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. From that judgment he appealed to this court.
March 14, 1918, the store of Morris-Woolf Silk Company, a corporation, was entered and 86 pieces of silk belonging to said company stolen and carried away. Shortly afterwards, three bolts of silk were found by the officers in the defendant's house at 1434 North Fifteenth street, concealed under a mattress between the mattress and the bed springs. This silk was identified by Mr. Conrad, manager of the Morris-Woolf Silk Company, as the silk taken from the store of said company. The defendant claimed to have bought the silk from a peddler and introduced evidence to that effect. Evidence was introduced by the state to show that the defendant had made contradictory statements in relation to the way he came into possession of the silk. In explanation of the place where the silk was kept, appellant at the time of its discovery said he had not much room in which to keep his stuff, and had to keep it where he had room. Other remnants were found in the same room.
The case went to the jury, and the principal error assigned by the defendant is the giving of the following instruction on behalf of the state:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Teel v. May Department Stores Co.
... ... element of criminal intent in her conduct. There cannot be a ... crime without criminal intent. State v. Hefflin, 338 ... Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d 938, 103 A.L.R. 1301; State v ... Weisman, 225 S.W. 949; State v. Herman, 162 ... S.W.2d 873. (5) ... ...
-
Teel v. May Department Stores Co.
... ... not guilty of the crime of false personation as (a) The ... element of criminal intent, or intent to defraud, was ... lacking; State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d ... 938, 103 A. L. R. 1301; 25 C. J. 577, 578; 2 Brill Cyclopedia ... of Criminal Law, sec. 1277, p. 1941; te v ... Weisman, 225 S.W. 949; United States v ... Bradford, 53 F. 542; Lamar v. United States, ... 240 U.S. 60, 36 S.Ct. 258, 60 L.Ed. 526. (b) By ... ...
-
State v. McClure
... ... Instruction H so informing the jury. Sherwood Commentaries ... Criminal Law, sec. 1. (a) Whether the offense charged be of ... common law or statutory origin, intent must be shown ... State v. Santino, 186 S.W. 976. (b) There cannot be ... a crime without criminal intent. State v. Weisman, ... 225 S.W. 949. (7) It was error to refuse appellant's ... Instruction K as defendant had a right to receive the deposit ... if he believed or had good reason to believe that the bank ... was not in failing circumstances at the time he received it, ... and on this point said instruction ... ...
-
State v. McClure
...or statutory origin, intent must be shown. State v. Santino, 186 S.W. 976. (b) There cannot be a crime without criminal intent. State v. Weisman, 225 S.W. 949. (7) It was error to refuse appellant's Instruction K as defendant had a right to receive the deposit if he believed or had good rea......