State v. Brooks

• Citation: 94 Mo. 121,7 S.W. 24
• Parties: STATE v. BROOKS.
• Decision Date: 20 February 1888
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

7 S.W. 24

94 Mo. 121

STATE v. BROOKS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 20, 1888.

1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION — FORM.

The mere omission to follow the usual formal language of an indictment which reads, "the grand jury for the state of Missouri, summoned from the body of the county of Taney, duly empaneled," etc., is not fatal to the indictment, provided it appears from the record that the indictment was preferred by a lawful grand jury, in and to a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. SAME — FAILURE TO INDORSE, "A TRUE BILL" — AIDER BY VERDICT.

The failure by the foreman of a grand jury to indorse the words, "A true bill," upon the indictment, is not such a defect as can be taken advantage of after verdict.

Appeal from circuit court, Taney county; W. F. GEIGER, Judge.

Indictment by the state of Missouri against Johnathan Brooks for an assault with intent to kill.

J. R. Vaughan, for appellant. Atty. Gen. B. G. Boone, for respondent.

NORTON, C. J.

Defendant was tried in the circuit court of Taney county, and convicted of an assault with intent to kill, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100; from which defendant appealed, after making an unsuccessful motion in arrest of judgment, in which it is alleged that the indictment is insufficient.

So much of the indictment as is objected to is as follows: "State of Missouri, County of Taney. In the circuit court of Taney Co., October term, 1883. (1) The grand jury, summoned from the body of Taney county, Missouri, duly impaneled," etc. The correctness of the body of the indictment is not questioned. The specific objection insisted upon is that it does not appear that the grand jury finding the indictment was a grand jury for the state of Missouri. While it would have been more formal, if the indictment had read, "The grand jury for the state of Missouri, summoned from the body of the county of Taney, duly impaneled," etc., the omission to follow that form is not fatal, provided it sufficiently appears from the record that the indictment was preferred by a lawful grand jury, in and to a court of competent jurisdiction; and this much does fully appear from the record in this case. State v. Freeman, 21 Mo. 482; State v. Daniels, 66 Mo. 205.

It appears that the indictment was signed by the prosecuting attorney, and that the name of the foreman also signed appears on the indictment, followed by the words "foreman of the grand jury." The words, "A true bill," are omitted. The sufficiency of the...