State v. Woolsey
| Decision Date | 12 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 47310,47310,1 |
| Citation | 328 S.W.2d 24 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Luther WOOLSEY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Ralph M. Crow, Rolla, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Hugh P. Williamson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was found guilty of stealing property of the value of at least $50, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. See Secs. 560.156, 560.161, RSMo and V.A.M.S. Defendant has appealed but filed no brief so we consider the assignments properly made in his motion for new trial. State v. Stehlin, Mo.Sup., 312 S.W.2d 838.
Defendant's motion for new trial raises only two points, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence to make a case for the jury; and error in summoning, as a juror, a woman whose husband was alleged to have been a deputy sheriff of the county at the time of the trial.
The State's evidence showed the facts hereinafter stated. Virgil Foster, who lived one mile west of Dixon, left home with his wife and child about 7:00 P.M., January 28, 1958, and returned about 10:30 or 11:00 P.M. The doors of their home were not locked. When they left home, Foster's General Electric television set, 1953 console, which the evidence showed was worth more than $50, was in the living room and when they returned it was gone. Foster identified, as his, the television set of the same make and model, found under the circumstances hereinafter stated, by a peculiar hole in the back which was shown to the jury.
State Highway Patrolman Knight saw defendant driving a station wagon about eleven o'clock on the night of January 28, 1958, with a television set in its and stopped him. Defendant said the set belonged to one of the two men who were with him but Knight brought them all to the Sheriff's office. The men said, at that time, that they got the set from a shed back of defendant's brother's house. They were released but followed by Knight and Deputy Sheriff Woodward to defendant's brother's house, where defendant's two companions unloaded the set 'and put it in the shed where they said they had first gotten it,' while defendant went into his brother's house. Later that night, Knight and Woodward talked to defendant's brother's wife and defendant's brother and were told by both that they knew of no television set stored in their shed, so defendant and the other men were arrested and the television set was taken to the Sheriff's office. Foster reported the loss of his set to the Sheriff's office the next morning and then went there and identified it. The television set was put in evidence before the jury to show them the hole by which Foster identified it.
Defendant testified that he was visiting at the Waynesville Hospital from about 7:00 P.M. until after 9:00 P.M. on January 28, 1958, and then visited other places until...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reagan
...to the State and the favorable inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom; and evidence to the contrary is rejected.' State v. Woolsey, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 24. 'In this state the law is well settled that while recent possession of stolen property is not proof of guilt as a matter of law, it is......
-
State v. Ballard
...On the admissibility of the rebuttal testimony to prove intent defendant cites State v. Mangiaracina, Mo., 350 S.W.2d 796, and State v. Woolsey, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 24. The facts in those cases as well as the law declared, are so wholly irrelevant here that it is not necessary to discuss them. ......
-
State v. Hutchin
...therefrom; and evidence to the contrary is rejected'; State v. Thomas, Mo.Sup., 309 S.W.2d 607, 609, and cases cited; State v. Woolsey, Mo.Sup., 328 S.W.2d 24, 25. Therefore, with the following facts shown by the State's evidence, this ground is wholly without merit. On July 30, 1960, betwe......
-
State v. Williams
...motion for new trial bearing on a case made need no further development. State v. Reagan, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 26, 29[5-7]; State v. Woolsey, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 24[2, 3]; State v. Bayless, 362 Mo. 109, 240 S.W.2d 114, II This offense was committed July 23, 1959. Laws 1959, S.B. 117 (repealing and r......