State v. Woods
| Decision Date | 19 January 1897 |
| Citation | 38 S.W. 722,137 Mo. 6 |
| Parties | The State v. Woods, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Vernon Circuit Court. -- Hon. D. P. Stratton, Judge.
Affirmed.
R. F Walker, attorney general, and Morton Jourdan, assistant attorney general, for the state.
(1) The defendant will not be heard to complain of the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon all the law or upon any particular branch of the case, for the reason that he failed to except to the action of the court to instruct the jury at the time. State v. Paxton, 126 Mo. 500; State v Cantlin, 118 Mo. 111. This failure of the defendant applied with equal force to the alleged action of the court in failing to tell the jury that they could acquit the defendant of either burglary or larceny; as a matter of fact the jury did acquit the defendant of the charge of larceny. (2) There was ample and sufficient testimony of the breaking moving the bolt or raising the latch was under the law sufficient, and this was necessarily done by the defendant in the perpetration of the burglary, because the Brocks testified that they left the house with the doors latched and the windows down. State v. Moore, 117 Mo. 395; State v. Tutt, 63 Mo. 595. The testimony in this case is sufficient to support the verdict; the verdict is in harmony with the law and the evidence. The jury were authorized to find the defendant guilty of either burglary or larceny or both the burglary and larceny, and the defendant will not be heard to complain of his acquittal of larceny. State v. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257.
Charged with the crime of burglary and larceny, defendant was convicted of the former crime in the second degree, his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary, but he went acquit of the larceny.
The indictment is based on section 3521, Revised Statutes, 1889, and charges a breaking into a dwelling house and larceny of certain articles therein and therefrom.
Defendant is not represented in this court by counsel, and so we are left in doubt to a great extent, except as indicated in the motion for a new trial, as to what grounds defendant relies upon for a reversal of the judgment herein.
The testimony in this case shows that the defendant lived with his father and brothers in Deerfield township, Vernon county, Missouri, during March, 1896, in the neighborhood of the Brock family. On the night of the twelfth of March, 1896, a literary entertainment of some kind was given at the country schoolhouse in that vicinity; that the Brocks left home that night, leaving the dwelling house alone, with the doors closed and latched and the windows down, and went together to the entertainment. It is shown that the defendant was at the literary entertainment early in the evening, and a number of persons saw him leave the room when the program was not half finished. He was not seen there again that evening. Upon the return of the Brocks it was found that someone had entered the house and had taken two suits of clothes and a hat. The clothes and hat were positively identified by the two Brock boys, to whom they belonged. It is shown that two or three days after the burglary the defendant left the state, and when arrested at Pittsburg, Kansas, had in his possession the clothes stolen the night of the burglary; in fact, when arrested, he had the pants on identified by and belonging to one of the Brock boys.
Upon the part of the defense the testimony tended to prove an alibi; that the defendant was at the entertainment during the entire program, and then went home with the Woods family. In explanation of the possession of the stolen clothes, defendant testified that about 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening on the day before he left for Kansas he purchased the entire suit from an unknown man who claimed he had worked for Forepaugh's circus; that he discovered the man and made the purchase in the dark, down at the trestle of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railroad;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Douglas
... ... Reed, ... 89 Mo. 168; State v. Brannum, 95 Mo. 19; State ... v. Day, 100 Mo. 242; State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo ... 100; State v. Kennade, 121 Mo. 405; State v ... Paxton, 126 Mo. 500; State v. Hilsabeck, 132 ... Mo. 348; State v. Foster, 136 Mo. 653; State v ... Woods, 137 Mo. 6; State v. Waters, 139 Mo. 539; ... State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100; State v ... Sacre, 141 Mo. 64; State v. Lamb, 141 Mo. 298; ... State v. Barton, 142 Mo. 450; State v ... Meadows, 156 Mo. 110; State v. Armstrong, 167 ... Mo. 257; State v. Koplan, 167 Mo. 298; ... ...
- State v. Brennan
- The State v. Westlake
-
State v. Fritz, 50292
...439, 443; State v. O'Brien, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 433, 434; State v. Stewart, 329 Mo. 265, 44 S.W.2d 100, 103, and cases cited; State v. Woods, 137 Mo. 6, 38 S.W. 722; 12 C.J.S. Burglary Sec. 3, p. 670. We have also held that the requisite intent to steal accompanying a charge of burglary can......