263 Mo. 264 | Mo. | 1915
During the night of January 10, 1913, about 56 pairs of trousers and 36 coats were stolen from the factory of the Schwab Clothing Company at Broad
Officer Archey testified that when he went to defendant’s place of business he told defendant that he (witness) had information that he (defendant) had there in his place some goods stolen from Schwab Clothing Company, and that defendant answered that he didn’t have any made up clothes of any kind; didn’t handle suits. He further testified that upon making search of defendant’s place the goods were found, and that he then asked defendant where he got the goods, to which defendant answered that some young fellow came round and he got them off of him, that he (defendant) said that he thought the man owned the goods and he bought them. Defendant was then placed under arrest.
Officer Amrein testified that defendant when asked whether he had such goods said that he did not have them, that his was a repair shop and that he didn’t have any suits of clothing at all.
Edward Allen, a tinner, testified that he went into defendant’s place in January, 1913, in the morning, and that there was a man there with a box of clothing which he sold to the defendant, giving the defendant a piece of white paper and that defendant paid the man some money.
Defendant testified that he had been a merchant tailor in St. Louis fourteen years and in the clothing business two years, a kind of a jobber. He testified that he had bought probably a dozen lots of clothing at different times; that on January 11; 1913, he bought
Mr. Bavin testified that about three years before the trial he sold defendant a lo.t of pants amounting to $225.
Defendant testified that he got a bill of sale for the goods bought by him from Shrinder. That bill showed that he paid $60 for the goods. An expert witness for the State testified that the goods found in defendant’s possession were worth $212.
It was admitted by counsel for defendant at the trial that the property which was exhibited at the trial was the property of the Schwab Clothing Company.
There was some evidence that the reputation of defendant for morality was good.
The ninth instruction for the State was as follows :
“If you believe and find from the evidence that the defendant made any statement or statements in relation to the offenses charged in the information after such offense is alleged to have been committed, you must consider such statement or statements all together. The defendant is entitled to what he said for himself if true, and the State is entitled to the benefit of anything’ he may have said against himself in any statement or statements proved by the State. What the defendant said against himself, if anything, the law presumes to be true, unless negatived by some other evidence in the cause, because said against himself. What the defendant said for himself, the jury may believe or disbelieve as it is shown to be true or false by the evidence in this case. It is for the jury to consider under all the facts and circumstances in evidence in this case, how much of the whole statement or state*267 ments of the defendant proved by the State, if any, the jury, from the evidence in the case, deem worthy of belief.”
There was no evidence in the case on the question as to whether the statements of defendant to the police officers were voluntary or otherwise; The verdict was as follows:
“We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen property of the value of thirty dollars ($30) or more, knowing the same to be stolen as charged in the second count of the information, and assess the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years.”
There was no request by the defendant that the court should instruct on the question as to whether the statements of defendant were voluntary; nor was that point suggested at the trial or in the motion for a new trial. Five days after the rendition of the verdict the defendant filed a supplementary motion for new trial which contained the following:
“5th. The court erred in giving instruction No. 9, as said instruction fails to instruct the jury that statements made by the defendant were ‘voluntary’ statements. ’ ’
The judgment is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion of Rot, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.