State v. Norman
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. J. 0. N 0EMILE, Judge. (1) As it appears from the record, there was no legal evidence that the value of the coat in question was thirty dollars or more, the court erred in giving instructions numbered 1 and 2. 1 Bishop on Crim Proc., sec. 751; State t>. Kreigher, 68 Mo. 98 ; State v. Doepké, 68 Mo. 208 ; 3 Greenl.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. J. 0. N 0EMILE, Judge. (1) As it appears from the record, there was no legal evidence that the value of the coat in question was thirty dollars or more, the court erred in giving instructions numbered 1 and 2. 1 Bishop on Crim Proc., sec. 751; State t>. Kreigher, 68 Mo. 98 ; State v. Doepké, 68 Mo. 208 ; 3 Greenl. Ev., sec. 153. (2) As the evi-' dence only tended to show that the coat in question was of some value to the owner, and not of the value of thirty dollars or more, the court erred in not instructing the jury as to petit larceny. R. S.…
1Opinion of the CourtBrace, J.
The defendant, upon his trial in the St. Louis criminal court, upon an indictment for grand larceny, was found guilty, and on the fourth day of January, 1890, was sentenced to two years’ imprison-ment in the penitentiary in accordance with the verdict *522rendered in the case. Prom this judgment he appeals. The offense with which he was charged, and of which he was convicted, was stealing one overcoat of the value of thirty dollars, the property of one Joseph Samuels.
The evidence for the state in chief tended to show that on the second of November, 1889, the said Samuels and the defendant were…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. ShedoudyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1941
- State v. EnochsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- State v. NapperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- State v. SaffoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. MillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.