State. v. Yates
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Railey |
| Citation | State. v. Yates, 252 S.W. 641 (Mo. 1923) |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 23666.,23666. |
| Parties | STATE. v. YATES et al. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.
C. W. Yates and another were convicted of robbery, and they appeal. Affirmed.
Henson & Woody, of Poplar Bluff, for appellants.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and J. Henry Caruthers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Statement.
On March 5, 1921, the prosecuting attorney of Butler county, Mo., filed in the circuit court of said county an information, in which appellants, with C. D. Brown, Rolla Nicholson, and Thomas Craft, were jointly charged with robbery the first degree, in that on February 2, 1921, in the county and state aforesaid, they feloniously robbed and carried away $3,500, the property of the Bank of Qulin, from one Irwin Waller, assistant cashier, in charge of said bank. A severance was' granted, and by agreement appellants were tried jointly. They waived a formal arraignment, and each entered his plea of not guilty. They were placed upon trial before a jury on April 8, 1921, and on the following day the jury returned into court a verdict in words and figures following:
The evidence on behalf of the state is sub stantially as follows:
That the Bank of Qulin aforesaid was duly incorporated under the laws of Missouri; that on February 2, 1921, Irwin Waller, 17 years of age, was assistant cashier of said bank, in Butler county, Mo., and was i_n charge of same, including its money and securities, on that day; that on said last-mentioned date, at about 4 minutes of 4 o'clock p. m., said assistant cashier, Waller, was going over some notes for defendants, Charles W. Yates, and Curt Adkins; that while figuring up the two notes, he heard, some one come into the door; that a man advanced to where Waller was standing and said, "Hands up"; that this command war, given a second time, and Waller was told to back to the vault door; that Waller, Yates, and Adkins were then placed at the vault, and Waller was told to open the safe; that the man who ordered him to throw up hie hands and to open the safe had a gun in hie hand, with the same pointed toward Waller that the latter was afraid of being killed and opened the safe, by reason thereof; that Waller was then put in the vault and locked up, about 2 minutes of 4 o'clock on above date; that the parties who approached with the gun were O. D. Brown and Rolla Nicholson; that the latter stopped at the front door and pulled down the blinds; that Waller was kept in the vault between 10 and 15 minutes; that when he was put in the vault O. D. Brown and Rolla Nicholson were in the bank building; that when Waller got out of the vault he found a $2 bill; that there was taken from the bank $2,100 in currency and $350 in silver; that, all told, there was taken $3,465.04, which was in charge of said Waller; that the value of said money so taken was $3,465.04, and that said money belonged to the bank aforesaid; that it was taken against the will and consent of said assistant cashier and the board of directors of said bank; that none of said money has been returned to said bank; that when Wailer came out of the vault the robbers were gone; that it was locked when Waller went into the vault; that defendants Yates and Adkins came into the bank just a few minutes before the holdup; that they came there about 10 or 15 minutes before Brown and Nicholson arrived; that Yates was the first to enter the bank and, with Adkins, was behind the partition which divides the customers' room from the banking room, when Brown and Nicholson came into the bank; that the closing hour of the bank was 4 o'clock p. m.; that Waller left the bank that day, about 3:30 or 3:45 o'clock, went to the post office, about 150 or 200 yards distant, and returned to the bank; that when Yates and Adkins came in they told Waller to fix up some notes that Adkins owed Yates, to figure up the interest and to put both notes into one; that the negotiations were not consummated that day; that after getting out of the vault, Waller called Mr. Chapman over and told him what had occurred; that Mr. Heffner and Mr. Huey were also called, and at this juncture Yates said, "Get some horses and take after them;" that Yates, Adkins, and several others got some horses and started after the robbers; that the latter left the bank by the back way; that Yates and Adkins said their horses were gone; that the funds taken was lawful money of the United States; that Waller did not see Nicholson's gun, but saw Brown's automatic 38 gun; that Yates and Adkins were put into the vault first, and were in there when Waller was put in after opening the safe. Brown and Nicholson were disguised, when they entered and robbed the bank.
It appears from the testimony of 0. D. Brown, a witness for the state, that he had been deputy sheriff of Butler county, Mo.; that he had known defendants Yates and Adkins for several years; that between 12 and 1 o'clock in the morning of February 2, 1921, he went to Qulin with Tom Craft and Rolla Nicholson, for the purpose of robbing the above bank; that on arriving at Qulin, they first went to Craft's house, and from there to Yates' barn, that is, Brown and Nicholson went to the hayloft of Yates, and stayed there until 25 minutes of 4 O'clock; that while he (Brown) and Nicholson were in the above" hayloft, they were visited there by defendants Yates and Adkins, and also by Craft; that Yates End Adkins talked with Brown several times while he was in the loft. They were to leave their horses behind the Qulin Bank, so that Brown and Nicholson could get them after robbing the bank. The horses were left as agreed upon. Adkins furnished Brown and Nicholson a knife, while they were in the loft, so they could cut the reins and turn the horses loose after escaping. Adkins stood guard until Waller returned from the post office, and gave Brown and Nicholson a signal, so they could come on and rob the bank. Witness then described the robbery as heretofore stated. Brown rode Yates horse and Nicholson rode Adkins' horse when they left the bank. It was understood between Brown and Nicholson and the other parties above mentioned that the loot was to be placed in a treetop, about 1½ miles from Qulin, and that Adkins was to get it. Witness testified as follows:
Brown testified that it was agreed before the robbery that Yates was to say to Waller, "For God's sake, open it (safe)." Brown further testified that they agreed on a place for depositing the money while Yates and Adkins were present at the barn; that he (Brown) never saw any of the money after it was left at the place agreed upon; that he entered a plea of guilty and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.
Mrs. J. P. Johnson, in behalf of the state, testified that she saw defendants Yates and Adkins and Tom Craft go to the Yates' barn several times on the day the bank was robbed, and before the utter took place.
The evidence for the state likewise tends to show that shortly before the robbery it was agreed between Brown, Nicholson, Craft, Yates, and Adkins that a false description should be given by Yates, Craft, and Adkins, in describing the robbers after they had fled.
Defendants' testimony:
Both appellants testified as witnesses in their own behalf, and contradicted the testimony of the state tending to show guilt upon their part.
Charles W. Calvin testified in behalf of defendants substantially as follows: That he was judge of the county court, and had been for three terms; that he was cashier of said bank at the time it was robbed, and was then at home sick; that he had known appellants for years; that they were customers of said bank; that Adkins owed him and Yates notes amounting to about $000, which were past due; that the reputation of defendant Yates, as an honest, law-abiding citizen in that community was good; that the same was true with regard to the reputation of defendant Adkins; that prior to the robbery he told defendant Yates about having a monkey-wrench in the vault.
Defendant Yates testified that Calvin had told him about the monkey-wrench being in the vault so they could escape, if locked in; that a screwdriver was found in the vault, and he (witness) lit a number of matches, which enabled them to see and open the vault from the inside.
Testimony was introduced pro and con as to the general reputation of appellants for honesty, etc.
Appellants filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Both motions were overruled, and thereafter the court entered judgment and pronounced sentence separately upon each of the appellants, in conformity to the terms of the verdict. Appellants in due time, appealed the canes to this court.
The instructions and rulings of the court, as far as necessary, will be considered In the opinion.
Opinion....
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Holloway
...for new trial. Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v. Short, 337 Mo. 1061, 87 S.W.2d 1031; State v. Hamilton, 340 Mo. 768, 102 S.W. 642; State v. Yates, 252 S.W. 641. The court did not err in submitting the cause to jury because appellant failed to offer peremptory instruction at close of all the e......
-
State v. Mason
...such errors. [State v. Whitsett, 232 Mo. 511, 530, 134 S.W. 555, 561; State v. Stenzel (Mo. Div. 2), 220 S.W. 882, 884; State v. Yates (Mo. Div. 2), 252 S.W. 641, 644; State v. Judge, 315 Mo. 156, 163, 285 S.W. 718, State v. Preslar, 316 Mo. 144, 149, 290 S.W. 142, 144.] In this Presslar ca......
-
State v. Baldwin, 48967
...is cautionary in nature and appears to be based upon an instruction stated to be correct and favorable to defendant in State v. Yates, Mo., 252 S.W. 641, 645. It required the jury to find the submitted acting together beyond a reasonable doubt, without considering any statements by Raymond ......
-
State v. Dingman
...v. Pope, 338 Mo. 919, 92 S.W.2d 904, a robbery case. It has been given in other cases, State v. West, Mo.Sup., 246 S.W. 541; State v. Yates, Mo.Sup., 252 S.W. 641, but the appellant insists that these cases should be re-examined and that the giving of the instruction should be held erroneou......