The State v. Adair
Decision Date | 26 February 1901 |
Citation | 61 S.W. 187,160 Mo. 391 |
Parties | THE STATE v. ADAIR, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson County Criminal Court. -- Hon. John W. Wofford Judge.
Affirmed.
James M. Chaney, Jr. for appellant.
(1) The verdict of the jury is against the evidence. (2) The verdict is against the law, as declared in the instructions given by the court. (3) (a) The court erred in refusing to give instruction 1 asked by defendant. People v. Fong Ah Sing, 64 Cal. 253; State v. Howell, 100 Mo 664; State v. Taylor, 134 Mo. 152. (b) The court should have given instruction 2 asked by defendant, in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence. (c) The court should have given instruction 3 asked by defendant. State v Lewis, 69 Mo. 92; State v. Edwards, 109 Mo. 322. (4) The court erred in giving instructions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. (a) Instruction 1 is so worded as to fall within the doctrine laid down in State v. Woodward, 131 Mo. 372. (b) Instruction 3 is clearly erroneous. State v. Blue, 136 Mo. 44. (c) Number 4 is misleading, and does not state the law on alibi. State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628; State v. Tatlow, 136 Mo. 678; Walker v. State, 42 Texas, 360. (d) Number 5 is erroneous. Bank v. Murdock, 62 Mo. 74; Batterson v. Vogel, 10 Mo.App. 239; White v. Maxcy, 64 Mo. 559. (5) The court erred in admitting illegal and irrelevant testimony. (6) The court erred in excluding from the jury proper, competent and relevant testimony offered by the defendant.
Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) This court has frequently held that where there is evidence showing guilt it would not invade the province of the jury and overthrow the verdict for want of evidence. (2) Defendant complains because the court refused to give his instruction number one. In this no error was indulged because the court had fully instructed on the question there involved. Instruction number four given by the court fully covered the question as to defendant's presence at the place of the robbery at the time of the commission of the crime. That was sufficient and it was not essential to give the instruction asked. State v. Jones, 78 Mo. 278; State v. Parker, 106 Mo. 217; State v. Elliott, 90 Mo. 150; State v. Jump, 90 Mo. 171; State v. Luke, 104 Mo. 563; State v. Sansone, 116 Mo. 1; State v. Gamble, 119 Mo. 427; State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185; State v. Johnson, 91 Mo. 439; State v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188; State v. Rockett, 87 Mo. 666; State v. Shroyer, 104 Mo. 441. (3) It is urged that error was committed in the instruction on the question of reasonable doubt. The case of State v. Blue, 136 Mo. 42, is cited as authority for such objection. The objection can not be sustained. The instruction requires the reasonable doubt to exist, with a view to all the evidence in the case. It is not subject to the same error as contained in the Blue case, but on the other hand strictly conforms to the criticisms there made. State v. Sacre, 141 Mo. 64; State v. Knock, 142 Mo. 515.
The verdict of the jury found defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, and assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary.
The instructions given by the court were as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial