State v. Taylor

Decision Date20 May 1889
PartiesSTATE v. TAYLOR.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

BARCLAY, J., dissents.

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; J. C. NORMILE, Judge.

Alexander Taylor appeals from a conviction for assault with intent to kill.

D. H. McIntyre and A. J. P. Garesche, for appellant. John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRACE, J.

The defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years, in the criminal court of St. Louis, on an indictment for assault with intent to kill. Presley N. Jones, an enrolled member of the bar of that court, was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to make the opening statement, and to assist in the prosecution of the case, — the prosecuting attorney and his assistant both being present, and able to conduct the same, — and the action of the court in this behalf is assigned for error.

1. This point must be ruled against the defendant, on the authority of State v. Robb, 90 Mo. 30, 2 S. W. Rep. 1; State v. Stark, 72 Mo. 37; and State v. Hamilton, 55 Mo. 520. There is no conflict between the ruling in these cases and that in the case of State v. Honig, 78 Mo. 249. The only point of practice ruled in the latter case was that if the counsel for the prosecution waived the opening he should not be permitted to make the closing argument to the jury.

2. After the objection to Mr. Jones' making the opening statement had been overruled, the defendant moved the court that, if Mr. Jones be permitted to prosecute, he be sworn to do the same fairly and impartially, and without fear and impartiality, and without fear, favor, or prejudice. This motion the court overruled, and its action in so doing is also assigned as error; and it is insisted here that the court should have required Mr. Jones to be sworn, under section 6, art. 14, of the constitution. It is a sufficient answer to this position to say that the permission of the court to Mr. Jones to prosecute did not constitute or commission him an officer of the state, and that we know of no law, organic or statutory, nor yet any practice of court, authorizing or requiring an oath to be administered to an attorney under such circumstances.

3. After the defendant had testified in his own behalf, the state was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to introduce in evidence the original record of defendant's conviction of the violation of a city ordinance in frequenting a bawdy-house. On the trial of one for a criminal offense, it is not permissible to show in evidence that the defendant has been guilty of another and independent crime, totally disconnected from the one for which he is on trial. When, however, the defendant goes upon the stand as a witness in his own behalf, his credibility may be impeached to the same extent, and in the same manner, as any other witness, except that he cannot be cross-examined as to any matter not referred to by him in chief. State v. Bulla, 89 Mo. 595, 1 S. W Rep. 764; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 381. Under the statute, prior to the Revision of 1879, persons convicted of arson, burglary, robbery, or larceny in any degree, or any felony, were declared...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Bartos v. United States District Court
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 17 Mayo 1927
    ...637; Haussener v. United States (C. C. A.) 4 F.(2d) 884, 887; Williams v. United States (C. C. A.) 3 F.(2d) 129. In State v. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240, 244, 11 S. W. 570, 571, it is "The general moral character of one who has been convicted of an infamous crime may well be considered so degraded a......
  • State v. Malusky
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 7 Mayo 1930
    ...between misdemeanors and infamous crimes at common law and misdemeanors which do involve moral turpitude is shown in State v. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240, 241, 11 S. W. 570, 571. In Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 S. Ct. 935, 940, 29 L. Ed. 89, the Supreme Court of the United States says: “What pu......
  • State v. Malusky
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 7 Mayo 1930
    ... ... convicted of treason, felony and the crimen falsi were ... rendered infamous," -- the latter under the ancient ... civil law embracing all crimes based on fraud and deceit, ... including forgery, perjury, and such matters where fraud and ... deceit were involved. See Taylor v. State, 62 Ala ... 164. Hence it has always been the rule that one guilty of a ... crime which rendered him infamous showed conclusively that he ... possessed moral turpitude. In the case of Bartos v ... United States Dist. Ct. (C.C.A. 8th) 19 F.2d 722, 723, ... the circuit court of ... ...
  • State v. Hilsabeck
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 4 Febrero 1896
    ...Mo. 11. No objection was made at the time or exception saved to remarks of counsel for the state. State v. Welsor, 117 Mo. 570; State v. Taylor, 98 Mo. 240; v. Pagels, 92 Mo. 300. (4) Defendant's fifth assignment (not true in fact) is not properly here for review, as no exception was saved ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT