The State v. White

• Decision Date: 14 November 1911
• Citation: 140 S.W. 896,237 Mo. 208
• Parties: THE STATE v. PATRICK WHITE, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

140 S.W. 896

237 Mo. 208

THE STATE v. PATRICK WHITE, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 14, 1911

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. Daniel D. Fisher Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, and John M. Dawson, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

(1) Instruction 1 concisely sets out the offense as defined in the statute, and fairly presents to the jury the law under the facts in evidence. Sec. 4441, R. S. 1909; sec. 5800, R S. 1909; secs. 2 and 10, art. 8, Missouri Constitution. (2) Instruction 4, that appellant was ignorant of the purport of his release papers when he left the penitentiary, and the fact that he thought or believed they were pardon papers which restored him to citizenship and the right of suffrage could be no defense in this prosecution, hence the instruction was proper.

BROWN, J. Kennish, P. J., and Ferriss, J., concur.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

At the December term, 1909, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, defendant was convicted of the crime of unlawfully registering as a voter in said city, as prohibited by section 4441, Revised Statutes 1909, and appeals from a judgment fixing his punishment at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.

In the year 1901 defendant pleaded guilty in the circuit court of St. Louis city to the crime of grand larceny, and was sentenced to a term of two years in the penitentiary. Notwithstanding he was by that conviction rendered ineligible to vote, he applied to register and did register as a voter in said city on September 14, 1908.

There was evidence on the part of the State to the effect that when the defendant applied to register he was sworn to testify regarding his qualifications as a voter, and testified that he had never been convicted of bribery, perjury or other infamous crime. There was also some evidence indicating that some of the registration officers in the precinct where defendant registered had knowledge of the fact that he had been convicted of grand larceny, but failed to call his attention to that fact when he applied to register.

Defendant testified in his own behalf that at the time of his discharge from the penitentiary in 1902, the warden said to him, "Here is your pardon papers. Now, go home and be a good citizen." That prior to the next election after his release, he exhibited papers received when he was discharged from the penitentiary under the three-fourths rule, to the registration officers of his precinct, and was by said officers informed that such papers entitled him to vote. Whereupon he did register and vote at an election held in the year 1904. That in registering on September 14, 1908, he believed his citizenship had been restored and that he was entitled to vote. There was evidence that an attorney applied to the Governor to pardon defendant a short time before he registered in 1908, and that such pardon was not granted.

Defendant's so-called pardon papers were not produced at the trial, and there was some evidence that they had been lost or mislaid.

Among the instructions given to the jury was the following:

"If you find the facts in this case to be as set out in instruction No. 1, then the fact, if you find it to be a fact, that the defendant believed that he had been restored to citizenship and had a...