The State v. Tracy
Decision Date | 08 June 1922 |
Citation | 243 S.W. 173,294 Mo. 372 |
Parties | THE STATE v. JOE TRACY, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. -- Hon. E. E. Porterfield Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) The indictment is sufficient. Sec. 3305, R. S. 1919; State v Helms, 179 Mo. 282; State v. Pearson, 234 Mo 264. (2) An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, with the exercise of which this court will not interfere, unless it clearly appears from all the facts and circumstances that such discretion has been abused to the prejudice of defendant. State v. Cain, 247 Mo. 705; State v. Salts, 263 Mo. 314; State v. Yeager, 209 S.W. 884. It is not reversible error to refuse a continuance if the evidence desired from an absent witness is merely cumulative. The application for a continuance herein shows that the desired evidence is cumulative only. State v. Riddle, 179 Mo. 294-5; State v. Horn, 209 Mo. 462; State v Sassaman, 214 Mo. 734. (3) Appellant complains of the admission of testimony of R. J. McNutt as being incompetent to identify the stolen barrels of whiskey. A careful reading of his testimony shows it to be entirely competent. All the barrels in the warehouse had burned thereon the name, "Blue Valley Distillery, No. 3, Sixth District of Missouri," and this brand was on the seventeen barrels found in the basement at 2807 East 45th Street. The stock on January 20, 1920, checked seventeen barrels short. State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 504; State v. James, 194 Mo. 276. (4) Recent exclusive possession by the accused of goods stolen at the time of the burglary raises the presumption of law that he was guilty of both burglary and larceny. The appellant and co-defendant, Murply, were shown by the evidence to have been in exclusive possession of the premises containing the stolen whiskey on the day following the burglary and larceny, and this evidence was competent. State v. Babb, 76 Mo. 503; State v. Henderson, 212 Mo. 215; State v. Toohey, 203 Mo. 678. (5) After appellant's instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence was overruled by the court he proceeded to offer testimony in support of his defense, and thereby waived his right to have the action of the court in this regard reviewed. State v. Lackey, 230 Mo. 713; State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 700. (6) Self-serving declarations of accused are not admissible in his behalf, unless they are a part of the res gestae. Appellant complains of the court's action in refusing to admit his conversation with his alibi witnesses at the Antlers Hotel. The refusal was proper. State v. Atchley, 186 Mo. 194; State v. Burgess, 193 S.W. 824; State v. McGuire, 113, Mo. 673; 16 C. J. 635-6. (7) Where there is substantial evidence supporting the verdict of the jury, as in this case, this court will not interfere. State v. Fields, 234 Mo. 627; State v. Sharp, 233 Mo. 298; State v. Cannon, 232 Mo. 215. (8) Instruction No. 2 is in approved form and correctly declares the law in this case. State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 281; State v. Blockberger, 247 Mo. 606. (9) Instruction No. 3 on recent possession of stolen goods is correct. State v. James, 194 Mo. 277; State v. Owen, 79 Mo. 624-6. (10) Possession of personal property is presumptive evidence of ownership. Instruction No. 4 is a correct statement of the law regarding the corporate ownership of the whiskey involved in this case. State v. Boone, 70 Mo. 653. (11) In order to justify reversal of the judgment it should appear that the remarks of counsel for the State were prejudicial to the defendant. The remarks complained of are proper conclusions drawn from the testimony in the record. State v. Harvey, 214 Mo. 410; State v. Whitsett, 232 Mo. 529.
The indictment charges that the defendant Joe Tracy, and Charles Murphy, on January 20, 1920, broke into a certain building, the bonded warehouse of the Blue Valley Distillery Company, a corporation, located between 39th and 40th Streets, on Holden Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri, and stole seventeen barrels of whiskey, of the value of $ 8500, of the goods and property of the Blue Valley Distillery Company, against the peace and dignity of the State.
The defendant was arraigned on April 15, 1920, pleaded not guilty, and entered into a recognizance in the sum of $ 5,000. On May 29th, the defendant was granted a severance and the trial was set for June 14th. On June 2nd the defendant applied for a continuance, which was overruled, and the cause set for trial on June 21st, on which day the trial was again set for July 12th. When the case was called for trial on July 12th, the defendant forfeited his recognizance, and scire facias was issued returnable on the 1st day of the next term of court, being September 6, 1920. On December 13th, the defendant again applied for a continuance, on account of the absence of witnesses, which was overruled, and the case went to trial before a jury on the following day, resulting in a verdict of guilty of burglary and larceny, for which the punishment was assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary for the burglary, and an additional two years for larceny. Motions for new trial and in arrest were filed and overruled. The defendant was thereupon sentenced in accordance with the verdict, and an appeal granted, the defendant being allowed to prosecute his appeal as a poor person.
The testimony for the State is thus summarized in the statement of the learned Attorney-General:
'Tracy said when leaving for the drive,
To continue reading
Request your trial