*1 398 Springfield,
In Biederman’s of
Inc.
entitle
v.
him to recover
if his case were
892, 895,
Mo.Sup.,
Wright,
brought
322
upon proper theory,
a
the judgment
this
instead,
Division
Two of
Court
that will not
No.
stated
outright,
be reversed
an
right
privacy
legally
“individual’s
judicial
exercise of
sound
a
discre-
protected
tion,
right
and the violation of such
will be
to give
case
remanded
him
recognized
independent
has been
as an
tort
the opportunity
petition,
amend his
advised,
the courts of Missouri.” The Court
if so
upon
to state a
as
op-
held
that evidence of unreasonable
the theory which
discloses.”
pressive
Airlines,
in an
oral communications made
Cudney
Cf.
v. Midcontinent
attempt
support
922,
662,
collect a debt
an
will
Pigg
Mo.
254 S.W.2d
v.
privacy.
Bridges,
action for
invasion
How-
Mo.Sup.,
28.
ever,
recognized (322
the Court
a
shows
state
facts which
record
“
892,
founded
898) that such ‘tort
be
must
justifies
plaintiff
permit
remand
upon publicity, in the
communica-
sense of
recovery
theory
seek
under some other
large
general
tion
to a
public
liability,
example,
if
see
so advised. For
persons,
distinguished
number
46;
Restatement,
Torts, Second,
Law of
§
”
few.’
Prosser
one individual or a
See
Pretsky
Telephone
Bell
Southwestern
v.
835;
Torts,
Ed., 112, p.
4 Restatement
3rd
§
Company, Mo.Sup.,
show The ele- plaintiff. said to
heard what was by evi- supported “publicity”
ment of Therefore, plain- judgment for
dence. in- for tiff, of action upon cause based STATE of Missouri, Respondent, cannot stand. privacy, vasion of disposition posture, what CHASE, Appellant. Gene Billy apparent the case ? It is should made of No. 53220. upon erroneous proceeded plaintiff part defend liability theory of Supreme Missouri, Court circumstances, Banc. En However, under ant. “done we conclude cannot June 1969. v. St. advantage.” See Smith strategic Co., Mo. Rehearing Sept. 8, Public Service Louis Denied 1969. rule stated 696. Louis, R. R. Ass’n of St. Terminal Smith v. applies: Mo.App., requires that justice furtherance
“The re without reversed not be case should court is con appellate
manding unless re are such facts
vinced though had; and even
covery cannot theory substantiate fails to
plaintiff tried, if he never case was
upon which might of facts which state
theless shows *2 top
men’s them on showcases. The defendant went pointed door and to a in the window. window, got Mr. West two out of got the rest he out showcase. As *3 recalled, and there were “three in the box maybe tray tray.” two or three in a The ring mountings also contained without stones. picked rings,
The defendant at the looked up one, it, head and looked shook his it high. said was He back tray; in originally it was a box. along The woman and other man also stood rings, the counter and at the looked only person the defendant Mr. was the although the anything West saw handle others could have. Mr. also showed West the defendant some unset diamonds a brought he from table near watch under displayed counter. He the diamonds light in explained and the difference Gen., Anderson, Atty. Norman H. How- grade in and the for the fluctuation reason Gen., Atty. ard McFadden, L. Asst. Jeffer- this, prices. doing While City, respondent. son for looking and other man around woman were Shaw, Bornschein, Hanks & L. L. Born- He did looking the diamonds. schein, Clayton, Mo., appellant. for they doing not what all of know were finally over The defendant walked time. STORCKMAN, Judge. said, them towards the door one of go.” defendant his “Let’s The com- stealing The defendant was convicted of panions not ten were the store over at more Sections valued $50. minutes. 560.161, V.A.M.S. 560.156 and RSMo punishment at two jury
The his assessed top rings The had remained on of the Department custody years in the and his showcase all the time the defendant by the presented The issues Corrections. they companions were in the After store. the suffi- appeal on relate to defendant left, Mr. West discovered two of ciency evidence. rings missing. had One of boxes 1963, shortly before On December him; belong did not by a accompanied m., p.5 the defendant phony ring”. referred it as “a Mr. West short, chunky man, “a and another woman deputy called the local A authorities. Jewelry Store man”, entered West’s colored sheriff learned that a 1961 Thunderbird operated which was owned Fulton with a license numbered Missouri KZ0872 store about by Claud West. vicinity jewelry had been store wide, with showcase feet long and 16 feet question. at the time The license had aisle and an each side counters been issued A warrant defendant. top of shown on Jewelry was middle. pickup defendant was and a issued order stood and customers cases or counters police sent to the in St. Louis. viewing it. The they were while carat Mr. quarter West further testified the defendant men’s to see some asked brought out was only any talking Mr. West that did while rings. diamond lot, Although may- ing the defendant’s store. woman remark, standing alongside did the defendant’s have made some the other man say a word. This other did not Officer searched man automobile. Weber yel- pick them ask to see the and did not defendant’s Thunderbird did white up and handle them. woman metal man’s five low pick only setting metal up them them. stones in white handle person anything the defendant “approximately who Mr. handle floor where West saw This sitting” plain view. his store was defendant. the miss- one of Mr. West as identified 10, 1964, January On a St. Louis Weber ing rings Officer valued at $100. officer, Weber, acquainted who was James IS approximately 10 to it was testified with defendant and knew the arrest about ap- defendant was minutes the time *4 order, pickup warrant and arrested defend- the car prehended on until Olive Street ant p. around 2:25 m. at the intersection police was searched on the lot. Seventh and Olive in Streets St. Louis. were Defendant’s by Weber, When halted the defendant was their The record silent as to arrested. riding in the rear left seat of 1961 identity any and whether of them were sitting Thunderbird. A in the woman was in Fulton. The defend- with the defendant back The car seat with the defendant. no ant offered evidence. by being was man and driven a second another sitting right woman was sufficiency the determining front seat. the a criminal after evidence in case accepts the as true guilty, verdict of court car, stopped When Officer Weber the tending prove in to all evidence the record opened side, right-hand the door on the guilt, such evi the whether defendant’s ordered defendant the and out vehicle nature, or dence is circumstantial direct informed him he was under Of- arrest. inferences together all favorable by ficer Weber was assisted another St. reasonably and can be drawn therefrom policeman, Tindall, Louis who was Officer in disregards contrary all evidence and duty nearby. de- The officers searched Webb, Mo., ferences. State v. fendant alongside weapon, for a his car McClinton, Mo., 799[6]; State none, found and then ordered him into the McGlathery, 55, 57[2]; State v. patrol They car. the ordered driver Mo., 447[1]; State of the and Thunderbird out of the car Morris, [1]; Mo., 688 weapon searched him for a but found none. Bayless, The women net The searched. Bayless case The states 119[ 1]. get driver told defend- 118 — was back the are presented ruling that “in the issue we police car ant’s and it to instructed to drive ain required the to view whole evidence headquarters. and Tindall Officers Weber light favorable the State.” most patrol taking de- followed it car fendant with them. The first of defendant’s “POINTS” headquarters general is the “The State
Police Twelfth and statement that: positive evidence eight from offered no direct nor Clark which was seven blocks Upon charge ‘Stealing’ arriving establishing scene the arrest. there, Defendant, being positive placed parking no both cars were on the there property alleged lot stolen at the rear of the identification of building. The ( n ring 2).” Exhibit is the by fendant was taken inside Officers Exhibit Web- er and The defendant’s com- found in the Thunderbird when Tindall. panions The arrested in St. Louis. parking lot. defendant was waited ring custody The kept defendant was station. evidence traces the park- Officer to the returned the time it was discovered Weber position to have rings of the and was in evidence until it was offered automobile was found committed theft the trial. The had unusual days ten later. his automobile about arrangement number of stones bore on the persuasive The Favell is not the mark of the manufacturer but not of facts of case. Jewelry the West Store. Mr. West testi disappeared fied that it which in- are remaining contentions 27, 1963, al from his store on December termingled uncertainly that it is stated though say he could not that no other precisely what rea- difficult to understand proof that ex similar existed. The instance, being sons are one of urged. For hibit was in fact stolen is also re- statements is that it bolstered the fact cently evi- property “is not sufficient the automobile the defendant who ownership pre- dence of overcome jewelry Fulton store when sumption of con- innocence warrant a fact, Any including ring disappeared. “ownership” viction.” related agency criminal any particular thing, is there nor stolen, may be identity property of the specification particulars in proved by evidence. circumstantial Ap- proof ownership is deficient. Brewer, 20[11]. pellate required speculate courts are not sufficiently identified and sought concerning particular error is what *5 properly State was admitted evidence. Mo., Peterson, charged. to be State v. 344, McCormack, Mo., 263 346 S.W.2d v. 134, Ownership 154 138[5], of S.W.2d [3]; Gyngard, Mo., v. 333 State S.W.2d is adequately proved. stolen It was 73, 639; Page, 79[10], v. 90 A.L.R.2d State that further stated that be shown must 577, Mo.App., The de 192 578 S.W.2d [3]. in the property” “identical found was fendant’s contention is denied. possession. this proof defendant’s adequate. quite score was also Following initial statement are four Further are that assertions stolen paragraphs in the nature statements of property must be shown to have been position hardly satisfy S.Ct.Rule in the possession” “found EXCLUSIVE V.A.M.R., 83.05(a) (3), but we will under- defendant, that the evidence “does not take to consider them. The defendant as- warrant inference that he was present serts the fact that he was at the possession RE thief such was UNLESS property time the was stolen is insufficient pos CENT and that EXCLUSIVE” and theft, support citing his conviction its recently property session of stolen “raises Favell, Mo.App., State v. 411 245. S.W.2d no presumption to theft” and guilt as Favell that evidence showed sup not warrant does a conviction. Cited in fendant was an standing seen in front of port Lack of these assertions are v. State typewriter office from which a was stolen land, 26, 812, 136 Mo. 37 State v. S.W. and that he was three other with Mo., Durham, 619, State v. men an emerging who were arrested 105, 18, Fogle, 211 Mo.App. 244 S.W. alley with an enclosed cardboard box con- 300, 113 James, Mo.App. State v. 133 S.W. typewriter. taining was This evidence 414, 232, Deckard, Mo., v. State support held insufficient the defendant’s 656, 50 Duncan, S.W.2d showing conviction absence Mo., Matticker, 22 S.W. 1021, and State v. office, he had entered the that he saw demon cases these Examination 2d 647. typewriter could have seen the inside aor controlling on they are not strates showing long un- of how the office was case. in this proved facts occupied. stronger much The evidence is at defendant was bar. The re possession of unexplained jewelry be the time shown to store cir- sufficient is a property cently stolen stolen, ring was handled least
403 379, 2d steal In the recent to sustain conviction of case of cumstance [10]. McClanahan, Webb, Mo., 218, State v. ing- property. State v. S.W.2d Mo., 20, 21 [1] ; Jones, [6], court held that “the possession recently goods sup defend stolen Mo., 784[2], The which will port however, possession guilt may joint was an inference of infers, ant that the possession another, a defendant and stolen December not recent. The possession such January need not be and was recovered separated later. from all others.” days fourteen 1964, which was Webb, Mo., In State reported immedi loss discovered and 604[2-6], possession ar defendant’s was held ately. A for the suffi warrant ciently proved where pickup goods and a order sent stolen rest was issued found in a closet Clearly, and under bed St. Louis. category defendant’s although is in the residence the house defendant’s automobile occupied by recently property. posses defendant’s stolen proved brother recently property is and his sister-in-law. The situation sion of stolen may quite Watson, this case explained, an inference unlike and not possessor the thief even 767[2], drawn that the where the only proved at the scene defendant’s though presence connection with Complete reliance on offense riding passenger crime is not shown. was his as a the in necessary in operated by the inference is not automobile owned and another carrying there is direct evidence which was stant case because stolen goods. present when the The fact the defendant was that the stolen position in a found in the ring was and was automobile near where he was committed the theft. seated considered in con have presence jewelry nection states argument In written store when the was stolen and his *6 that the that there can be no inference conduct at justifies that time an inference not an possession was in his because he was possession his at the occupant of the car from the time of his time police stopped officers car. and seizure. arrest to the time the search of interval from The evidence is presence The accused During part time 10 to 15 minutes. of this place commission a criminal being the defendant’s automobile was may offense along considered with patrol driven to station other incriminating evidence to determine if following. complaint car is without the total circumstances raise a reasonable 1209, Meeks, merit. State v. inference that partici the accused awas 765, 768[2], was held pant an or aider abettor crime. prosecution admitting a con- burglary Ramsey, Mo., 413, State v. 368 S.W.2d packages found testimony that he stable’s ; Castaldi, State Mo., v. 386 S.W.2d 418[9] it had after the defendant’s automobile 392, [2], fairly any 395 Evidence showing days parked jail for two been near the participation form of affirmative in a night error. and one was not crime support is sufficient to a conviction. Mo., Finally, Butler, 952, asserts that the defendant State v. 957 2, [7]; Mo., not ring, Ramsey, exhibit was shown to State v. the stolen 413, possession, presence have been the defendant’s From the defendant’s 418[9]. in store, create an and jewelry To conduct exclusive or otherwise. an infer does ence guilt, may reasonably the term “exclusive” ference of be drawn that he was sepa participant that the must active the theft mean provided ring. all there is other He rate others asked to be shown men’s and most, all, to the defendant with did if talking. connect Mo., 235 Jordan, only S.W. He is the State v. one that was handle offense. seen to considered, the evidence from a other. When so rings. He took amply guilty. tray. supports put it back in the verdict box left, “phony ring” and his judgment is affirmed. His automobile was in the box. This transport them Fulton. used HENLEY, FINCH, DONNELLY by the fact buttressed evidence is further MORGAN, JJ., concur. auto- that the was found stealing arrested for mobile after SEILER, J., separate dissents in dis- it. senting opinion filed. HOLMAN, J.,C. dissents. supreme court on review right indulge presumption must in a SEILER, Judge (dissenting). court, trial wrong by rather than action demonstrating and the error burden of respectfully I dissent. prejudice by of the denial a mo reason long-established have a rule in cir We upon tion for directed verdict rests cumstantial in 'criminal law evidence cases Latham, 344 defendant. convicted State that “the facts and relied circumstances 1089, 1090[4]; Mo. upon by guilt the state must not to establish Glenn, Mo., 1032[2]; 262 S.W. only be consistent with each other and with States, Pritchard 386 F.2d v. United they hypothesis guilt, States, 250 [2]; Neubauer 763 v. United must also irreconcilable be inconsistent and 838, 839[1], F.2d 356 U.S. den. cert. innocence, clear point with his and must pos 715, 2 758. A mere 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d ly satisfactorily guilt as to exclude sibility of sufficient innocence is not every hypothesis innocence.” reasonable in justify holding that the evidence that the Other cases the rule in terms support guilty. sufficient a verdict of must be irreconcilable “[circumstances] Mo., Spraggins, with the innocence of the accused.” 411[7], yardstick, Measured circum- presence stances and action of defendant’s Tettamble, store, jewelry suspicious while evi- circumstantial involved the use of opportunity such as have afforded him an in a murder This court stated dence case. being incon- rings, take the fall short of *7 of the evi- jury may that the all consider sistent and with his innocence irreconcilable the and that determining guilt dence every hypoth- and of excluding reasonable instruction defendant was entitled to an not esis clear Mr. of innocence. The record is it had a acquit if jury that the should West, actually proprietor, the did see not a to the evidence of reasonable doubt as persons take of the three in his store further held: singled-out fact. The court pick rings, although the defendant need he saw doubt “The measure of reasonable it, up put ring that ring, one look at specific detailed applied to the not be tray. rings top of back in the The were on facts, 431 only the whole issue.” but to persons All the showcase. three were look- 441, The evidence 443[4-7], enough ing rings close in its the and were considered the instant case must be defendant the strengthen- have reached The was entirety; probative them. value its rings, only handle the but parts to each one Mr. saw the West ed the relation of See, Wilson, 2. v. Mo. 136 ef 345 declarations 1. For recent Freyer, 997; State 330 of this v. and Two in Divisions One fect 894, 899; Sallee, Mo., S.W. Mo. 436 court see State Pritchett, Aguilar, 246 and State 2d goes back almost 797. The rule 754. years, Hill, Mo. 84. State v. however, standing this, property. The trouble with he the were testified others defendant, prove have handled is the state failed to that the and could around counter “ * * * knowledge notice what the the did not with conscious rings. Mr. West the doing property stolen, all fact that persons the was exercised other two * * * ”, left dominion control it Mr. West over and on occasions time two the State v. he went rings. (Mo.Sup.) Once was when Webb by 604. pointed out get front window to time was when the defendant. The other To illustrate: when defendant arrest- was near got table the unset diamonds from Louis, ed on Olive no search Street St. de- showed them to counter and watch was made at time of his automobile. did light. under a Mr. West fendant The officers did at that not see notice away and did not rings time. is no as There where do- companions two what defendant’s it at was who had or three Altogether the ing during this time. particular told to moment. Defendant was persons jewelry store around were in the car, did, get out of the and he which he mat- brought the One of them minutes. weapons. was then searched on street for they go” and by saying, “Let’s ter an end Defendant again did not enter He his car. departed, is no evidence thereupon but there had no further it and at all times access to cue, cue, given by de- it if was car, after being defendant ordered from fendant.3 custody police of the two officers. They police ex- took him with them car. us do not circumstances before every hypothesis inno- reasonable clude No search was made at time part (such cent intent on the defendant arrest of the two women who were rings looking at and stones as car, sitting fendant’s one of whom was they ex- buying) do view toward the back seat next The driver to defendant. every hypothesis that clude reasonable searched, only weapons may have or of defendant’s both permitted get was then in the car. back knowl- taken without police not keep did the car its occu- or evi- edge was no contrivance. There pants They under close observation. left relationship any past that there was dence lot, the car alone with its two. The best the other defendant with occupants, and it was not until some out of these circumstanc- can make state 10 or 15 minutes after arrest Of- present in es is that ficer Weber the car. searched Then was ainwas was stolen and store when floor, he found the “approx- This position the theft. to have committed imately sitting where” defendant had been peniten- put him not sufficient Here, some 10 or 15 earlier. minutes
tiary years. for two Schleicher, Mo., the recent One, opinion then Division in- majority S.W.2d 258 which state and pos- question volved unexplained of what was sufficient to that the upon the rule rely *8 possession recently in suffi- show defendant recently property is of stolen of session property, stealing the stolen there in record is no of sustain a conviction cient to participa- the is example inference that defendant used of affirmative 3. As an bring theft, ma- car to them Fulton. by the in the defendant tion course, possible, opinion Such an inference is of jority auto- states defendant’s sought transport but the them conclusion defendant [de- “was used to mobile actually thereby by so companions] How- did is no means Fulton.” fendant’s many ways established. There are de- ever, evidence was direct while there store, companions parked fendant's could been in the have near car was fendant’s transporting Fulton without in rec- them the no is direct there many way to how there and there are innocent rea- as other or the one ord why person might got sons Fulton. have his auto- defendant’s majority opinion mobile means in Fulton. the doubt Ko ring. ring had the any time session of the at evidence that defendant later, found the auto- ring. some 10 or 15 minutes the and control over dominion possession not then in fact in his mobile was of possession in defendant No saw was, instead, possession in the exclusive relying cir- is ring. Again the state actions, companions, of his three for whose defend- to establish cumstantial evidence mentioned, as was not earlier defendant are circumstances possession. But the ant’s ring responsible. be shown to com- or all or with some one as consistent floor, a open in an area the rear found having in the car three bination of other any easy reach of location which was within it as with put ring where was found How occupants any of the three time. at of having so. The floor defendant’s done ring got or when the there is shown. them open car and available to was as in Significantly, ring found defendant, dur- in fact it more so as was some in the compartment cache or locked defendant when ing the 10 or 15 minutes likely car which known or accessi- would be nothing There in the car all. is was not my opinion, ble to the car owner alone. is that defendant in the record to show facts, under these defendant cannot said acts, legally chargeable their with possession to have been in of the with- they did after any knowledge what had by in the upon rule relied the state. pushing the he left the car. “It would be aof require accused rule far to of one too Meeks, State v. 327 Mo. possession explanation of his crime 765, 768, by majority opinion cited for possession property, such the stolen when proposition there is merit in defend- no also, right, attributed equal could point ant’s was not found Warford, another”, his car until after some or 15 minutes are circumstances 888. The S.W. possession car had been in the exclusive putting the three as consistent with one defendant, clearly distin- others is after de- of the car on the floor guishable, respectfully I In the submit. fendant left the car as with case, Meeks the automobile in which having put As it there. stated cigarettes stolen later was in found 106- Fogle, Mo.App. S.W. possession the exclusive at aU case involv- a circumstantial evidence times were arrested. after defandants later tire ing alleged theft which Therefore, no one else but defendants could quite (a car situation found on defendant’s put they have cigarettes where where similar what we have here found. The court states at 39 “ * * * car), later in defendant’s l.c. 768: There was no evidence “ ** * short, must be possession tending slightest degree to show the other idea that some such as to exclude the cigarettes one had concealed may casing where person have left the car after the defendants had lost exclusive ” * * * * * *” showing no There was was found. it. The facts are in the case possession in defendant Also, much different case. that one or the idea bar such as to exclude cigarettes another that the distinction is charge who were left more away the Meeks case were found stashed it was where automobile opinion “places what described concealment”, found. seeming not the here as ring. to the The mere fact the automobile was owned by these is not sufficient In State v. (Mo.Sup.) Webb having charge 601, 604, circumstances him with majority opinion cited *9 and control had the exercise of dominion proposition joint possession the a that is suf ficient, the left ring. over the defendant the facts that defendant was at present car at there was the order his house the time the stolen pos- therein, had nothing property that moment show who to the loot some of every sleep principles highest one of our is that he was the bed in which being under person presumed is be innocent was not to case defendant ing. In our found, beyond a proved guilty crime until charged in the car when free, Frequently which independent reasonable a case doubt. had but others who entirely rests as In circumstantial evidence to was found. on access where major this saw defendant steal (no cited in does one case State Webb other joint that it possession) saw in ity proposition no one opinion on the and hy- sufficient, will admit counter rival possession 432 S.W. of several is (Mo.Sup.) situation, potheses. the con- possession are not In such a all the facts 2d as to satisfactorily admittedly joint pos disposed of had clusions must be all similar. Webb presumption in- hogs claimed excluded before the of the stolen session —he safety In else and nocence can with be abandoned. hauling them for someone hypothesis the case unex us the that some- possession exclusive before was not 235 S. one other defendant (Mo.Sup.) than stole plained. Jordan involving equally shop proved well lifting a accounts for facts W.2d major actuality, dispute this case. In there is no jointly charged, women cited ity is starts with about circumstances in case—but opinion, a case which joint possession. conclusion that there is reasonable no hypothesis does of defendant’s innocence In the two Webb cases Jordan necessarily not follow. The circumstances established, case, possession—was step one — hypothesis do not exclude the that someone then, two, possession and, step it held other defendant and for acts whose Here, however, the need not be exclusive. responsible was not to be took shown circum- issue whether there is sufficient ring at the store in Fulton and left it in his re- step one—the stantial to show car knowledge. without his The circum- quired possession in issue defendant. This stances equivocal are not we should simply step by applying cannot be resolved permit a jail to be possession two—that not be exclusive. need equivocal circumstantial evidence. Where used, step approach one —did Under thus a conviction rests on circumstantial evi- possession? the defendant have —on dence, here, as required is the case we have step depends, two remains unestablished. the circumstances to irreconcilable with innocence long point guilt clearly There is a of Missouri cases and to as line so holding suspicion guilt, how- exclude every hypothesis mere reasonable strong, is innocence. ever not sufficient to authorize affirming con-
criminal conviction. by Nor changed is this rule the fact we, effect, our as to viction violate rules jury has returned a verdict guilty and evidence, in- presumption circumstantial we, therefore, accept true as all evidence nocence, way and what it takes tending etc., prove guilt, or by other permit an property general opinion majority rules cited guilt theft. inference of appellate many review. This court has circum- entirely for the times resting There is sound reason a conviction reversed has been in evidence rule which circumstantial stantial evidence. ver- Even after “ * ** long in criminal in Missouri dict the force test still ‘the circumstances, cir- conviction, It is on the that in a cases. based idea warrant a must other, pro- in a criminal cumstantial evidence case consistent with each tend to must only weigh prove jury guilt, only not has to ceeding must be consistent evidence which the circumstances es- with the hypothesis are guilt, of the defendant’s tablished, just conclusions must draw but must every be inconsistent with other easy them. It is take one-sided reasonable hypothesis, hypoth- including the ” * * * under the in- view of circumstances when esis of his innocence’ Mis- powerful impressions. But fluence of few souri courts have affirmed such convic- *10 and circumstances the facts tions where are not inconsistent by the evidence
shown il defendant. As the innocence of
with cases, see many such lustrative of 796-797, Pritchett, l.c. supra, 39 S.W.2d taken, quotation the above
from which banc, 201 S. Mo. Murphy, (Mo.Sup.) and State v. Watson
W.2d relied on the cases one of majority opinion.
in the remanding objection to
I would have no reversing outright,
this case rather opportunity present give
so as to state unquestion- The state
additional evidence. persons
ably identity the three knows the de-
who were automobile he was arrested.
fendant Louis when in St. these investigated
If the state had what ring being on
persons knew about them as wit- the car and had used
floor of
nesses, have very if we would I doubt much voicing although in present problem,
our speaking realize I am
this observation I hindsight. advantage find out
chances are the state could also were with
identity persons two who These in the store in Fulton. plug gaps
witnesses should be able against
which exist state’s
defendant, the thief. if the defendant evi- present
But if the state is able record, beyond
dence what is in dismissed
the information should be discharged.
fendant Respondent, Missouri,
STATE COBB, Appellant.
Harold
No. 53332. Missouri,
Supreme Court of Banc.
En
Sept 1969.