64 Mo. 591 (Mo. 1877), State v. Kring

Citation:64 Mo. 591
Opinion Judge:NAPTON, Judge.
Party Name:STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. CHARLES F. KRING, Respondent.
Attorney:J. L. Smith, Att'y Gen'l, for Appellant, R. S. McDonald, with Presley N. Jones, for Respondent,
Judge Panel:The other judges concur, except Judges Hough and Norton, who were absent at the hearing.
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 591

64 Mo. 591 (Mo. 1877)

STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant,

v.

CHARLES F. KRING, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

April Term, 1877

Appeal from the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

J. L. Smith, Att'y Gen'l, for Appellant, cited: People vs. Harrington, 42 Cal. 165; Phillipson vs. Bates, 2 Mo. 116; State vs. Holme, 54 Mo. 153; State vs. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; State vs. Starr, 38 Mo. 270.

R. S. McDonald, with Presley N. Jones, for Respondent, cited: 16 Howell, State Trials, 94; 13 Id. 222; 5 Id. 979; 4 Bl. Com. 322; 1 Leach 43; 2 Hale Pleas of Crown, 219; 1 Greenl. Ev. 102; 2 Id. 371; Grant vs. Thompson, 4 Conn. 203; Pratt vs. Coffman, 33 Mo. 76; Dickinson vs. Barber, 9 Mass. 225; Kinne vs. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102; McLane vs. State, 16 Ala. 680; McAlister vs. State, 17 Ala. 434; State vs. Scott, 1 Hawks 32; Whart. Cr. Law, § 57; People vs. March, 6 Cal. 543; Wright vs. Tatem, 1 Ad. & El. 387; 7 Ad. & El. 313; U. S. vs. Sharp, 1 Pet. C. C. 118; State vs. Mary, 50 Mo. 81; Freleigh vs. State, 8 Mo. 612; Rucker vs. Eddings, 7 Mo. 116; State vs. Main, 31 Conn. 577; Hoskins vs. State, 11 Ga. 96; 22 Ala. 38; 21 Id. 549, 558; State vs. Foster, 61 Mo. 549; State vs. Dunn, 18 Mo. 421; State vs. Starr, 38 Mo. 270.

OPINION

NAPTON, Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree, at the November term, 1875, of the Criminal Court of St. Louis, and sentenced to be hanged, but on an appeal to the Court of Appeals of St. Louis, the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered, and from this last judgment of reversal the State appeals to this court.

As the opinions of the court of appeals are reported and published, it is unnecessary to review the ground upon which their judgment of reversal is based, in which we concur. The English authorities, to sustain the conclusion of the court of appeals, are referred to in the opinion, and also in the brief of the counsel for the defendant, in this court, to which may be added a decision in California ( People vs. Harrington, 42 Cal. 165), referred to by the Attorney General. From all these cases, it seems very clear, that without some good reason, authorizing the criminal court to depart from the general practice in England and in this country, the shackles of the prisoner, when brought before the jury for trial, should be removed.

We have no doubt of the power of the criminal court, at the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP