Jennings v. State
| Citation | 9 Mo. 862 |
| Parties | JENNINGS v. THE STATE. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1846 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM BENTON CIRCUIT COURT.
STRINGFELLOW, Attorney-General, for Appellee, to sustain the decision of the Circuit Court, insists: 1. That the evidence objected to, ought to have been admitted, as it was a continued transaction. 2. The instructions asked by defendant, ought to have been rejected; the first being too general, and the others restricting the issue. 3. The instructions of the court were properly given. 4. The indictment is sufficient. Johnson v. State, 7 Mo. R. 183; Stat. 1835. Crimes and Punishments.
The appellant was indicted in the Circuit Court of Benton county, under the 35th section of the 2nd article of the act concerning Crimes and Punishments. The indictment charged that the defendant on, &c., at, &c., with force and arms, did feloniously make an assault on the body of one Samuel Grosong, with a large iron auger, and then and there did feloniously wound, disfigure and inflict on the body of said Samuel Grosong, with the said iron auger, great harm under circumstances which would have constituted manslaughter, if death had ensued, contrary,” &c.
The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to an imprisonment of thirty days in the county jail, and to pay a fine of fifty dollars. A motion was made in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, both of which were overruled. On the trial, the court instructed the jury, that if the defendant wounded Grosong, or did him great bodily harm, with auger, and the auger was a dangerous weapon, or calculated to produce death, he was liable to the prosecution, and in that case, the amount of injury was not important: but if the weapon was not a dangerous one, the defendant was not guilty, unless the wounds were of a dangerous character, from which death might probably have ensued. The proof on the trial was that the defendant had inflicted the wounds with an auger.
The principal point we suppose to be relied on for the reversal of this judgment, is the alleged insufficiency of the indictment. The indictment is very inartificially drawn, but rejecting from it such words as are mere surplusage, and transposing its language, it will be found to embrace every substantial requisite of a charge under the 35th section of the 2nd article of the act. It will then read, “that the defendant, at, &c., on, &c., with force and arms, did feloniously make an assault on the body of one Samuel Grosong, with a large iron auger,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Webb
...in such case the information ought to aptly charge the facts which go to distinguish such a battery from the ordinary battery. [Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. 862.] For it is said that case that "It is essential in an indictment under the 35th section (now section 4483) to aver the circumstances ......
-
State v. Webb
...But in such case the information ought to aptly charge the facts which go to distinguish such a battery from the ordinary battery. Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. 862. For it is said in that case "It is essential, in an indictment under the thirty-fifth section (now section 4483), to aver the circ......
-
State v. Nieuhaus
...1849, under which the indictment was drawn, as construed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Carrice v. State, 11 Mo. 579; Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. 862, and State Bailey, 21 Mo. 484, says that danger to life is involved in a prosecution thereunder; yet the trial court ruled that these issu......
-
State v. Gabriel
...or manslaughter, if death had ensued, or that the act was done willfully, intentionally, with malice, or with a deadly weapon. Jennings v. State, 9 Mo. 862; State v. Moore, 65 Mo. 606; State v. Bailey, 21 Mo. loc. cit. 484; State v. Bohannon, 21 Mo. 490; State v. Janke, 238 Mo. 378, 141 S. ......