State v. Caldwell

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gooch

    314 Mo. 646 (Mo. 1926)   Cited 8 times

    We accordingly hold that the application of the prosecuting attorney of Chariton County, Missouri, for the search warrant aforesaid, sufficiently complied with the law and is valid. We likewise hold that the search warrant, under which the sheriff acted, is valid and complied with the requirements of the law. [State v. Halbrook, 279 S.W. 395 and cases cited; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Perry, 267 S.W. l.c. 831.] The above assignment of error is accordingly overruled.

  2. State v. Vesper

    289 S.W. 862 (Mo. 1926)   Cited 18 times
    In State v. Vesper, 289 S.W. (Mo.) 862, a charge of manufacturing hootch, moonshine or corn whiskey was affirmed on proof of the unlawful distilling of alcohol from denatured alcohol.

    Several cases of alcohol, the same as that found in the house, were also discovered in his car. State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Ayers, 285 S.W. 997. (2) It is largely the province of the trial court to decide how much of a rebuke is necessary to neutralize the danger which may be done by an attorney's statement. The court reprimanded the State's attorney in every instance requested but one and the defense attorneys themselves invited that statement.

  3. State v. Sandoe

    289 S.W. 890 (Mo. 1926)   Cited 17 times
    In State v. Sandoe, 316 Mo. 55, 62, RAILEY, C., speaking for the court, in affirming a conviction under a charge for manufacturing hootch, moonshine or corn whiskey, in discussing the contention of the appellant "that there was no evidence given or offered by the State proving or tending to prove the intoxicating liquor alleged to have been made by defendant was corn whiskey," said: "Sheriff Smith testified that he tasted the whiskey in controversy and that it was corn whiskey.

    (1) The evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 799; State v. Cardwell, 279 S.W. 99; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700. (2) The corpus delicti was proven by substantial evidence. Defendant's statements were sufficient to constitute extra-judicial confession, and there was sufficient other evidence to make such confession admissible.

  4. State v. Mohr

    289 S.W. 554 (Mo. 1926)   Cited 9 times

    The court followed the latest rulings of the Supreme Court on this subject and committed no error in said ruling. Search [State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474; State v. Halbrook, 279 Warrant. S.W. 395; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Perry, 267 S.W. 831.]

  5. State v. Rhodes

    292 S.W. 78 (Mo. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    Evidence of the guilt of Rass Rhodes was slight; but instructions of the court on this point were exceedingly liberal and weight of evidence was for the consideration of the jury. State v. Howe, 228 S.W. 477; State v. Winkler, 273 S.W. 1043; State v. Cason, 252 S.W. 689; State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cardwell, 279 S.W. 99; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700. (3) The instructions of the court were proper and particularly fair and liberal toward the defendant. No exceptions were saved to the instructions given by the court, nor was any instruction offered by the defense.

  6. State v. Polson

    317 Mo. 293 (Mo. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    (1) The information properly charges the manufacturing of intoxicating liquor. Sec. 21, Laws 1923, p. 242; State v. Gatlin, 267 S.W. 797; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Alexander, 278 S.W. 709; State v. Wright, 280 S.W. 703; State v. Brown, 304 Mo. 78. (2) Appellant's objections to the admittance and rejection of testimony and to the overruling of the demurrer of defendant, are too general and too vague to merit consideration. Sec. 4079, R.S. 1919; Laws 1925, p. 148; State v. Jackson, 283 Mo. 24; State v. McBrien, 265 Mo. 604; State v. Whitman, 248 S.W. 938. (3) Instruction 12 was entirely proper and in no way invaded the province of the jury.

  7. State v. Nerini

    320 Mo. 196 (Mo. 1928)   Cited 3 times

    State v. Elmer, 267 S.W. 934; State v. Smith. 261 S.W. 96; State v. Hurnden, 2 S.W.2d 145; State v. Pinto, 312 Mo. 99; State v. Hazelhorst, 296 S.W. 139. (2) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant, who swore to the application, had no personal knowledge of the evidence therein set out and there was none introduced before the justice from which he could find proper cause for the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellmen, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (3) The court erred in submitting this case to the jury on two counts in the information which charged the defendant with two distinct felonies. The State should have been required to elect upon which count it would proceed to prosecute the defendant, whether requested by the defendant or not. State v. Preslar, 290 S.W. 42; State v. Burrell, 289 Mo. 678; State v. Guye, 299 Mo. 366; State v. Link, 286 S.W. 12.

  8. State v. Brugioni

    320 Mo. 202 (Mo. 1928)   Cited 11 times
    In State v. Brugioni, 320 Mo. 202, 7 S.W.2d 262, 264 [8], the prosecuting attorney, in discussing the testimony, referred to statements made by defendant to the Sheriff when the latter was searching his premises.

    (1) The search warrant issued by the justice of the peace was illegal and void, because the evidence shows that the applicant for the search warrant who signed and swore to the application had no personal knowledge of the facts therein set out, and there was no evidence introduced before the justice from which he could find probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Locke, 259 S.W. 116; State v. Smith, 262 S.W. 65; State v. Hall, 265 S.W. 843; State v. Miller, 266 S.W. 1024; State v. Shellman, 267 S.W. 941; State v. Huckhobe, 269 S.W. 691; State v. Cobb, 273 S.W. 736; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Hallbrook, 279 S.W. 395; State v. Gooch, 285 S.W. 474. (2) The instruction requested by the appellant in the nature of a demurrer to the State's evidence should have been given.

  9. State v. Bauer

    12 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1928)   Cited 6 times

    Evidence. Let it be said, however, that the facts and circumstances developed by the State at the trial are abundantly sufficient, in every particular, to support the verdict in this case. For rulings to the same effect, based on similar proof, see State v. Nerini, 6 S.W.2d 853; State v. Stough, 2 S.W.2d, supra; State v. Widick, 292 S.W. 52; State v. Dailey, 280 S.W. 1044; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. Thogmartin, 270 S.W. 313. We find no prejudicial error in the record.

  10. State v. Kroeger

    321 Mo. 1063 (Mo. 1929)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Kroeger, 321 Mo. 1063, 1066, 13 S.W.2d 1067, 1068, where a witness testified he bought a quart of "corn whiskey, supposed to be" this court en banc said arguendo the testimony "may be said to tend to prove a sale of corn whiskey."

    This court will not interfere with the verdict where there is substantial evidence. State v. Bennett, 270 S.W. 295; State v. Cockrum, 278 S.W. 700; State v. White, 289 S.W. 953; State v. Loftis, 292 S.W. 29. (2) The verdict was within the statute and responsive to the charge in the indictment. BLAIR, J.