State v. Kolafa
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the prosecution, over the timely objection of the defendant, to show other larcenies by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Wilson A. Taylor, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the prosecution, over the timely objection of the defendant, to show other larcenies by the defendant. State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 242; State v. Spray, 174 Mo. 569; State v. Boatright, 182 Mo. 33; State v. Ottrick, 184 S. W. 108; State v. Cummins, 213 S. W. 969; (2) Instruction 5, that the State had introduced evidence tending to show thei theft of other automobiles, and that the jury could consider said testimony “for the purpose for which it was admitted, that is, to show the intent,…
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant and one William Ehrenberg were jointly indicted in two counts charging grand larceny, and receiving stolen property knowing it to be stolen. One automobile of the value of three hundred and fifty dollars was the property involved. After severance Kolafa was tried alone. The State elected to proceed upon the first count, charging grand larceny. The defendant was found guilty and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary. The appeal is from that judgment.
The State introduced as witness one Joseph Nochta, who owned a Ford automobile, model 1916, which he said was…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. StarrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- State v. Carroll and JocoySupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- State v. DaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Allen v. ForsytheMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. GadwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- State v. ScownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
- State v. StogsdillSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- State v. HartSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- State v. LeisureMissouri Court of Appeals · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.