74 S.W. 851 (Mo. 1903), The State v. Beagles
| Judge | GANTT, P. J. Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur. Burgess and Fox, JJ., concur. |
| Parties | THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error, v. BEAGLES |
| Citation | 74 S.W. 851,174 Mo. 624 |
| Date | 19 May 1903 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | . |
Page 851
Error to Vernon Circuit Court. -- Hon. H. C. Timmonds, Judge.
Writ of error quashed.
(1) The trial court held that the filing of the second information for the same matter, on June 24, 1902, quashed the information which was filed on June 27, 1902. The law is not so written in this State. The first indictment was merely suspended and new life and vitality might have been imparted to it by the quashing of the second indictment. But while we do not believe that the first information was quashed, ipso facto, by the filing of the second, it does not follow that the first indictment was in full force so long as the other was not quashed. The first indictment was at least suspended, and we do not believe that the defendant ought to have been tried on it so long as the second indictment remained in full force. The case was probably brought here by the State in view of the decision of State v. Melvin, 166 Mo. 565. But in our opinion that decision does not convict the trial court of reversible error. While the trial court gave a "wrong reason" for its decision, still the result was right. (2) Whatever may be the merits of this controversy, it seems that the defendant must go acquit. Even though this court should hold that the trial court committed reversible error and remand this cause for trial, in that event the defendant would interpose the objection that he can not be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. "A person is in legal jeopardy when he is put upon trial before a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment or information which is sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, and a jury has been charged with his deliverance; and a jury is said to be thus charged when they have been impaneled and sworn. The defendant then becomes entitled to a verdict which shall constitute a bar to a new prosecution; and he can not be deprived of this bar by a nolle prosequi entered by the prosecuting officer against his will, or by a discharge of the jury and a continuance of the cause." Cooley on Constitutional Limitations (5 Ed.), p. 399; Ex parte Snyder, 29 Mo.App. 260.
OPINION
Page 852
[174 Mo. 625]
This record is before us on a writ of error sued out in behalf of the State.
On the 27th day of January, 1902, the prosecuting attorney of Vernon county, filed in the circuit court of said county an information against the defendant charging him with the defilement of his ward.
The defendant was arrested, duly arraigned, and pleaded "not guilty." The cause was continued and defendant entered into a recognizance for his appearance [174 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial