The State v. Rowland

• Decision Date: 19 May 1903
• Citation: 74 S.W. 622,174 Mo. 373
• Parties: THE STATE v. ROWLAND, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 S.W. 622

174 Mo. 373

THE STATE v. ROWLAND, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 19, 1903

Appeal from Macon Circuit Court. -- Hon. Nat. M. Shelton, Judge.

Affirmed.

John R White and Nat. M. Lacy for appellant.

(1) If the crime was committed and Edwards was robbed, the State failed utterly to connect the appellant with it in any manner whatever. The prosecuting witness exonerates him. (2) The verdict of the jury is against the law and the evidence in the case. Defendant told a straight story on the stand, gave a good account of himself, and also established a good reputation for honesty, fair dealing and moral worth in the neighborhood in which he lives. A jury is not at liberty to arbitrarily reject the evidence of the accused without regard to the elements of credibility which his evidence possesses or to reject it because of his interest, or because they are not satisfied that it has been corroborated. Underhill Criminal Evidence, p. 74, sec. 58; Owens v. State, 63 Miss. 452. The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained and defendant discharged. State v. Staffen, 16 Mo.App. 553; State v. Brunner, 17 Mo.App. 274. (2) The court erred in not defining the term "felonious" as applied in this case, and in failing to give all the instructions necessary to a full and fair trial of this case under the evidence offered, and in failing to instruct that the assault must have been made feloniously. State v. Johnson, 111 Mo. 578.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and C. D. Corum for the State.

(1) In his motion for a new trial defendant contends that the court erred in not defining the term "felonious," and that the court should have instructed that the assault must have been feloniously committed. It was unnecessary to use the word "felonious." As it is unnecessary to use the word "felonious" in an instruction, it is not detrimental error to fail to define it. State v. Barton, 142 Mo. 455; State v. Woodward, 131 Mo. 372; State v. Brown, 104 Mo. 371; State v. Miller, 159 Mo. 120. (2) It is also contended by defendant in his motion for a new trial that the evidence fails to show any conspiracy or understanding between the defendant and any other person to rob Edwards. This contention may be true; but there was evidence tending to show that there was a concerted action between defendant and a third party in robbing the prosecuting witness, and this was sufficient. State v. Johnson, 111 Mo. 584.

OPINION

BURGESS, J.

Under an indictment preferred by the grand jury of Macon county against defendant, charging him with having robbed one Richard Edwards of thirty-five dollars in money, defendant was convicted and his punishment fixed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.

Defendant appears.

The facts are about as follows: On the 12th day of August, 1901, the defendant and one Richard Edwards were in Macon City, and were drinking together quite freely. About dark that evening, Edwards informed defendant Rowland of his purpose to take a train that evening for the town of Excello, and the two started toward the depot, Edwards for the purpose of taking the train, and defendant to accompany him to the depot.

When Edwards first arrived at Macon City on the day aforesaid from his daughter's in the country, he had thirty dollars in his possession, and thereafter received an additional sum of seven dollars and fifty cents. On the way to the depot he and defendant concluded to take a parting drink, when Edwards handed to the defendant twenty-five cents with which to purchase it. Defendant then went to a near-by saloon and procured a bottle of beer for that sum. Upon his return, the two sat down to drink, and during the time which was consumed in drinking the beer, another party came up and remarked, "That was not the right kind of a place to be drinking, and if we didn't move on we would be run in." Edwards then got up and started, when the defendant Rowland said, "Go with me, that is not the way to the depot." The other gentleman then said, "Yes, go with him" (referring to the defendant). Edwards then started off with defendant. It seems that the prosecuting witness walked more slowly than the defendant and traveled behind. When the men had reached a street light they were pursued by a third person, and an altercation then occurred. The third person said, "I guess I will run him in." And Edwards replied that he had committed no offense for which he ought to be arrested. Thereupon, the defendant, or the third person, it does not clearly appear which, struck Edwards with some instrument above the eye, knocking him down. He was then picked up by the two men and carried a short distance away. Here he was found a few minutes afterwards in an unconscious condition, and it was observed that his pockets were turned wrong side out. The State further offered in evidence the statement made by the defendant to the police officers, that he did not accompany Edwards toward the depot, but left him at the point at which they drank beer. On the following day, however, he did admit to several persons that he was in company with him at the time he was assaulted and stated that Edwards was assaulted by some one who pretended to be an officer, and that he, the defendant, ran away immediately on the approach of the person...