Case ID: mo_105/html/0318-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Macfarlane, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. Hilderbrand, Appellant.
    
    DIVISION TWO.
    Criminal Practice: evidence : declarations of codefendant. Declarations made by a defendant subsequent to the commission of the common criminal act, tending to prove complicity on the part of a codefendant, are inadmissible against the latter.
    
      Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court. — Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge,
    Reversed and remanded.
    
      A. W. Anthony and D. Wray for appellant.
    
      John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.
   Macfarlane, J.

Defendant was jointly indicted with. Henry T. Melrose and James Parris for the larceny of a steer. On the trial witnesses were permitted to detail in evidence, over defendant’s objection, declarations made by Farris, subsequent to the common criminal enterprise, which tended to prove defendant’s complicity in the crime. Under the authority of State v. Melrose, 98 Mo. 594, the admission of these declarations was error.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.