State v. Clump
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The state could not introduce the statements of co-defendant, Schroeder, not under oath, as those of an accomplice, and afterwards make a witness of said co-defendant. II. In larceny, there must be a taking, and although the taking may be presumed from the possession, yet no possession was proved against the defendant Clump. HI.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. I. The state could not introduce the statements of co-defendant, Schroeder, not under oath, as those of an accomplice, and afterwards make a witness of said co-defendant. II. In larceny, there must be a taking, and although the taking may be presumed from the possession, yet no possession was proved against the defendant Clump. HI. Although possession may be constructive, yet a constructive possession upon a presumed taking cannot amount to more than a presumptive larceny, a thing not recognized in. law, because all doubts must be in defendants favor. IY.…
1Opinion of the CourtHyland, Judge
The defendant was indicted for grand larceny, (hog stealing,) by the grand jury of St. Louis county — was tried and convicted. He moved for anew trial. The motion was overruled, and he appealed to this court. The bill of exceptions preserved the evidence and the instructions given on the trial. In the opinion of this court, the instructions given properly put the case before the jury.
1. The admission of the witness Schroeder, who was jointly indicted with the defendant, but in whose case a nolle prosequi had been entered by the state, was not improper. The instructions given are, first: “ If…
2Cited by12 opinions
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. Chyo ChiagkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- State v. StarrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- State v. PopeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- State v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.