State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 30 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | 34512 |
| Citation | 95 S.W.2d 1157 |
| Parties | STATE v. WRIGHT |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Lillie Knight, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and William W. Barnes, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Appellant Jack Wright, was convicted in the circuit court of Clay county, Mo., on a charge of larceny of domestic fowls in the nighttime. The jury assessed his punishment at 5 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Being unsuccessful in obtaining a new trial, he appealed.
The evidence in the case was very brief on the part of both the state and appellant. The state's evidence in substance was, that on the night of March 5, 1934, about 40 chickens were taken from the farm of Oscar Thomason. The chickens were taken from a roost in a shed a short distance from the Thomason home. Garland J. Wright, a son of appellant testified for the state that he, the appellant, and one Lemar Portwood drove from Kansas City to the Thomason farm in Clay county on the night of March 5; that they parked their car near the Thomason home; that Portwood and his father left and he remained in the car until they returned in a short time with the chickens; that the chickens were taken to Kansas City.
Neither appellant nor Portwood testified in the case. The evidence offered by appellant was to the effect that he was in bed with an injured leg at the time the offense was alleged to have been committed, and that he was unable to be out at that time.
The only question briefed by appellant is, that this court ought not to permit this verdict to stand because it is wholly supported by the testimony of a confessed accomplice, and because it was shown that there was some ill feeling between appellant and his son. That a defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is conceded in appellant's brief. Appellant insists that the evidence introduced by the state cannot be considered substantial evidence in view of the circumstances in which it was obtained; that is, that the charge against the son was dismissed. The record shows that this was not done until the son was offered as a witness and appellant objected to his testimony. The son was subjected to a long cross-examination. He minutely detailed all the circumstances of the crime. On the other hand, the evidence introduced by appellant to show that it was physically impossible for him to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woods
... ... facts sufficient to constitute or charge a crime against the ... defendant. Sec. 3681, R. S. 1929; State v. Loeb, 190 ... S.W. 303; State v. Baker, 278 S.W. 989. (6) There ... was sufficient, substantial, material and competent evidence ... to support the verdict. State v. Wright, 95 S.W.2d ... 1157. (7) Assignment of error number seven in appellant's ... motion for a new trial was insufficient and not specifically ... set out for review. State v. Dollarhide, 87 S.W.2d ... 156, 337 Mo. 962; State v. Copeland, 71 S.W.2d 750, ... 335 Mo. 140; State v. McKeever, 101 ... ...
-
State v. Goffstein
...State v. Short, 87 S.W.2d 1031, 337 Mo. 1061; State v. Hohensee, 62 S.W.2d 439, 333 Mo. 161; State v. Vigus, 66 S.W.2d 854; State v. Wright, 95 S.W.2d 1157; State Perno, 23 S.W.2d 88; State v. Lewis, 20 S.W.2d 529; State v. Watson, 104 S.W.2d 275. (2) The court did not err in allowing the c......
-
State v. Strickler
... ... offense different from that charged or attempted to be ... charged in the original information. * * *' ... A ... motion to quash or a demurrer should be sustained where an ... amended information charges an entirely different offense ... from the original. State v. Wright, Mo.Sup., 95 ... S.W.2d 1157; State v. Fletcher, 227 Mo.App. 321, 51 ... S.W.2d 170. State v. Boggs, Mo.App., 49 S.W.2d 269; ... State v. Walton, 255 Mo. 232, 164 S.W. 211; ... State v. Jenkins, 92 Mo.App. 439; State v ... Emberton, ... ...
-
State v. Wright
...leg during the month of March. These witnesses, however, did not testify that appellant was unable to walk. In this, as in case No. 34512 (95 S.W.2d 1157), appellant briefed only one point; namely, that this court should not permit this conviction to stand because it was based on the eviden......