205 U.S. 483 (1907), 493, Barrington v. Missouri

Docket Nº:No. 493
Citation:205 U.S. 483, 27 S.Ct. 582, 51 L.Ed. 890
Party Name:Barrington v. Missouri
Case Date:April 22, 1907
Court:United States Supreme Court

Page 483

205 U.S. 483 (1907)

27 S.Ct. 582, 51 L.Ed. 890




No. 493

United States Supreme Court

April 22, 1907

Submitted April 8, 1907




Although the brief alleges that certain federal questions were duly raised in the state court and so disposed of as to sustain the jurisdiction of this Court, if those questions are wholly without merit, or foreclosed by previous decisions of this Court, the writ of error will be dismissed, and held that rulings of the state court in a criminal case in regard to change of venue, admission of evidence, and form of indictment were not subject to review in this Court and afforded no basis for holding that plaintiff in error was not awarded due process of law.

Article V of Amendments to the Constitution does not operate as a restriction on the powers of the state, but solely upon the federal government. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172.

Under the laws of Missouri, the right of accused to the endorsement of names of witnesses on the indictment does not rest on the common law, but on state statute, and whether the provisions have been complied with is not a federal question, and the decision of the state court is not open to revision here.

The question of citizenship is immaterial as affecting the jurisdiction of this Court under § 709, Rev.Stat. As a general rule, aliens are subject to the law of the territory where the crime is committed.

No treaty gives to subjects of Great Britain any different measure of justice than that secured to citizens of this country.

Writ of error to review, 95 S.W. 235, dismissed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

FULLER, J., lead opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was found guilty of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, and, after

Page 484

motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were made and overruled, judgment was rendered on the verdict, and sentence passed accordingly. The case was carried to the supreme court of the state, and the judgment was affirmed by Division No. 2 of that court, having appellate jurisdiction of criminal cases. No federal question was referred to in the opinion of the court. A motion for rehearing was filed wherein federal questions were sought to be raised. The court denied the motion without opinion.

Plaintiff in error then moved for the transfer of the cause to the court in banc, setting forth certain federal questions, and the cause was transferred. The court in banc adopted the opinion of Division No. 2 as its opinion, and the judgment was again affirmed. 198 Mo. 23. A motion for rehearing, assuming to raise federal questions, was filed and denied without opinion. This writ of error was thereupon brought, and comes before us on motions to dismiss or affirm.

No assignment of errors was returned with the writ, as...

To continue reading