174 Mo. 373 | Mo. | 1903
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 appeals.
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'
Testifying on his own behalf, the defendant admitted that he had, at first denied having any knowledge of the assault that was made on Edwards. He further testified that he did accompany Edwards in the direction of the depot, and that when two men
Edwards also testified that defendant had nothing to do with robbing him.
At the close of the State’s evidence defendant asked the court to instruct the jury “that under the law and the evidence you must return a verdict for defendant.” This the court declined to do, and in so doing defendant insists committed error. The contention is that there was no evidence to authorize the verdict, and that the verdict of the jury is against the law and the evidence of the case.
Much stress is placed upon the fact that Edwards testified that defendant didn’t have anything to do with robbing him, but this statement was not conclusive upon the State under the circumstances, for the evidence tends strongly to show to the contrary, and that Edwards was robbed after he was knocked down .-and was unconscious and did not in fact know certainly whether defendant was one of the parties who robbed him or not. That there were two of them concerned in the robbery is clear, and that defendant was one of them we are fully satisfied. His taking Edwards a different and further route to the depot than the one that he started upon, his knowledge that he had money upon his person, the assault upon Edwards alone while defendant was not molested, and his statements after they were both confined in the jail, point very strongly to his guilt, at least tend to show it, and its weight was for the consideration of the jury. - It is only in case there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict that this court will interfere, and the facts disclosed by the record in this case do not bring it within that rule.
There is nothing disclosed by the record tending to show that the jury were actuated by bias or prejudice against the defendant in rendering their verdict.
It was unnecessary to use the word “felonious” in the instructions on the part of the State, or to defino it. [State v. Woodward, 131 Mo. 369; State v. Barton, 142 Mo. 450; State v. Miller, 159 Mo. 113.] Finding no reversible error in the record we affirm the judgment.