State v. Crooker

• Decision Date: 04 June 1888
• Citation: 8 S.W. 422,95 Mo. 389
• Parties: The State v. Crooker, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 422

95 Mo. 389

The State v. Crooker, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 4, 1888

Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. -- Hon. H. P. White, Judge.

Reversed.

Peak Yeager & Ball and G. F. Ballingall for appellant.

The indictment under which the defendant was convicted charges him with "obtaining of and from Mary Eskens and Peter Eskens her, his, and their property, to-wit, certain real and personal property." There is no further description of the property charged to have been taken contained in the indictment. The statutes of this state provide that the property alleged to have been taken shall be described in the indictment by the name by which it is usually known. R. S secs. 1814, 1817. "Personal property" is a generic term, embracing a large number of species, and does not define or describe any particular property, and is not the name by which any particular property is usually known. The defendant is not informed whether he is charged with obtaining from Eskens a horse, a mule, a cow, a sheep, a hog a wagon, a cart, money, bonds, notes, groceries, dry goods, grain, or any other of the numerous classes into which personal property is divided. He is not informed of the nature or character of the offence charged against him, or of the evidence which will be required upon his part to meet the charge. The description is so vague and uncertain that in case of a conviction or acquittal he would not be able to plead the conviction or acquittal in bar of another prosecution. This court has held that the defect here complained of is fatal. State v. Kroeger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Reaky, 62 Mo. 42; State v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 256; State v. Hill, 65 Mo. 87; State v. Rocheforde, 52 Mo, 199.

B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.

OPINION

Brace, J.

The defendant was indicted in the criminal court of Jackson county, at Kansas City, at its November term, 1885. The indictment contained two counts, one under section 1335, and the other under section 1561, Revised Statutes, 1879. During the progress of the trial the state dismissed the first and elected to proceed under the second count. Its sufficiency was called in question by an objection to the introduction of any testimony under the indictment, and by the motion in arrest of judgment. The trial court held it sufficient and its so holding is assigned for error, and on the record here, the first question presented for consideration is the sufficiency of the second count of the indictment, which is as follows: "And the grand jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present and charge that H. D. Crooker, whose Christian name in full is unknown to these grand jurors, at Jackson county, in the state of Missouri, on the -- day of December, 1884, unlawfully, feloniously, and with intent to cheat and defraud, did obtain of and from Mary Eskens and Peter Eskens her, his, and their property, to-wit, certain real estate and personal property, the exact description of which is unknown to these grand jurors, of the value of six thousand and seventy-five dollars, by means and by use of a cheat and a fraud and a trick and a deception, and false and fraudulent representation, and a false and fraudulent statement, and a false pretense, and a confidence game, and a false and bogus instrument, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state."

Section 1561, Revised Statutes, under which it is drawn, is as follows: "Every person who, with intent to cheat and defraud, shall obtain, or attempt to obtain, from any other person or persons any money, property, or valuable thing whatever, by means or by use of any trick or deception, or false and fraudulent representation, or statement, or pretense, or by any other means, or instrument, or device, commonly called the 'confidence game,' or by means or by use of any false or bogus check, or by any other written or printed or engraved instrument, or spurious coin or metal, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than two years. In every indictment under this section, it shall be deemed and held a sufficient description of the offence to charge that the accused did on -- unlawfully and feloniously obtain or attempt to obtain (as the case may be) from A B (here insert the name of the person defrauded) his or her money or property by means and by use of a cheat, or fraud, or trick, or deception, or false and fraudulent representation or statement, or false pretense, or confidence game, or false and bogus check, or instrument, or coin or metal, as the case may be, contrary to the form of the statutes," etc.

It will be observed that this count in the indictment is drawn in terms as general as the statute itself, except in two particulars, the insertion of the name of the defendant and of the parties from whom it is charged he obtained the property. It is a fundamental rule of criminal pleading, of such importance to the rights of a citizen as to have received the guarantee of constitutional protection, that no one shall be held to answer a criminal charge unless the crime with which it is intended to charge him is set forth in the indictment with such precision and fullness...