State v. Gennusa

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Gennusa

167 S.W. 439, 258 Mo. 273, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 337

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedMay 26, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 167 S.W. 439 (State v. Gennusa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Gennusa, 167 S.W. 439, 258 Mo. 273, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 337 (Mo. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, J. —

Defendant was tried and convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county of the crime of receiving stolen goods, and appeals. The specific charge is that he received three cases of cigars of the value of $74, the property of the Kansas City Transfer Company, knowing said cigars to have been stolen.

There is no evidence that the cigars were in fact stolen. The testimony for the State strongly tends to prove that the Kansas City Transfer Company intentionally committed them to the possession of Sol. Guthrie, one of its teamsters, with instructions to deliver them to the Frisco Railroad Company for shipment, and that said Guthrie, while said goods were so in his possession, feloniously embezzled and sold them to defendant for $30.

Receiving Goods". I. The crime of knowingly receiving embe'zzled goods is very similar to the offense of receiving stolen goods, but under the statutes and decisions of this State the charge of receiving stolen goods is not sustained by proof that the goods received by a defendant were only embezzled. [State v. Fink, 186 Mo. 50; State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1; State v. Coster, 170 Mo. App. 539.] This issue seems to be so well settled by the foregoing decisions that any extended discussion of the same by ns is unnecessary.

. Other assignments of error are duly preserved 'and assigned! by defendant for reversal, but as the evidence clearly indicates that he cannot be convicted of the present charge, and as there is no. reason to suppose that the same alleged errors will occur if the State elects to prosecute him for receiving embezzled goods, or for some other crime, we will simply reverse the judgment and remand the cause. It is so ordered.

Walker, P. J., concurs; Paris, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROWN, J. —

Defendant was tried and convicted in the criminal court of Jackson county of the crime of receiving stolen goods, and appeals. The specific charge is that he received three cases of cigars of the value of $74, the property of the Kansas City Transfer Company, knowing said cigars to have been stolen.

There is no evidence that the cigars were in fact stolen. The testimony for the State strongly tends to prove that the Kansas City Transfer Company intentionally committed them to the possession of Sol. Guthrie, one of its teamsters, with instructions to deliver them to the Frisco Railroad Company for shipment, and that said Guthrie, while said goods were so in his possession, feloniously embezzled and sold them to defendant for $30.

Receiving Goods". I. The crime of knowingly receiving embe'zzled goods is very similar to the offense of receiving stolen goods, but under the statutes and decisions of this State the charge of receiving stolen goods is not sustained by proof that the goods received by a defendant were only embezzled. [State v. Fink, 186 Mo. 50; State v. Casey, 207 Mo. 1; State v. Coster, 170 Mo. App. 539.] This issue seems to be so well settled by the foregoing decisions that any extended discussion of the same by ns is unnecessary.

. Other assignments of error are duly preserved 'and assigned! by defendant for reversal, but as the evidence clearly indicates that he cannot be convicted of the present charge, and as there is no. reason to suppose that the same alleged errors will occur if the State elects to prosecute him for receiving embezzled goods, or for some other crime, we will simply reverse the judgment and remand the cause. It is so ordered.

Walker, P. J., concurs; Paris, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.W. 439, 258 Mo. 273, 1914 Mo. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gennusa-mo-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack