8 S.W. 221 (Mo. 1888), State v. Rush
|Citation:||8 S.W. 221, 95 Mo. 199|
|Opinion Judge:||Brace, J.|
|Party Name:||The State v. Rush, Appellant|
|Attorney:||T. B. Haughawout for appellant. B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.|
|Case Date:||May 07, 1888|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. -- Hon. M. G. McGregor, Judge.
(1) Defendant's motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained; the description of the money therein was not sufficient. State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530, and cases therein cited. (2) The court should not have permitted the state to take a severance in the cause, and then permitted Bailey and Pike to use statements made to them by Beard, the co-defendant, under promise made to Beard that he would not be prosecuted, as a key by which they could open the heart of the defendant and obtain from him the pretended confession. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. 962; 15 Mo. 28; Fitzgerald v. State, 14 Mo. 413; State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40. (3) The admissions or confessions of defendant, as testified to by sheriff Bailey and detective Pike were not admissible. State v. Gorman, 64 Mo. 526; State v. Simons, 50 Mo. 368; State v. Hager, 50 Mo. 192. (4) A new trial should have been granted because of the misconduct of the sheriff having the jury in charge. State v. Murray, 91 Mo. 95, and cas. cit. (5) A new trial should have been granted because the court did not instruct upon all the law in the case. State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Bank, 73 Mo. 592. (6) A new trial should have been granted because of the misconduct of the jury.
(1) The description of the money in the indictment is sufficient. R. S., sec 1817; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119. (2) The confessions and statements of defendant were competent. State v. Simons, 50 Mo. 370; State v. Hagan, 54 Mo. 192; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478; State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 102; State v. Guy, 69 Mo. 430; State v. Phelps, 74 Mo. 128; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278; State v. Fredericks, 85 Mo. 145. (3) The separation of the jury was not such as to justify a reversal. State v. Collins, 86 Mo. 245; State v. Payton, 90 Mo. 220; State v. Washburn, 91 Mo. 571. (4) Where affidavits are filed in support of and against the motion for a new trial this court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial court in refusing to grant it unless it appears that defendant has been prejudiced. State v. Griffith, 63 Mo. 545. (5) (a) Jurors will not be permitted to impeach their own verdict. State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; State v. Shock, 68 Mo. 552; State v. Dieckmann, 75 Mo. 570; State v. Fox, 79 Mo. 109; State v. Dunn, 80 Mo. 681. (b) Testimony as to jurors' declarations, made after the trial, will not be received to show misconduct. State v. Deickmann, supra; State v. Cooper, 85 Mo. 256. (c) A juror's testimony is admissible to support the verdict. State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40.
[95 Mo. 201]
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP