Osborne v. Owsley
| Decision Date | 11 January 1954 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 43666,43667,s. 43666 |
| Citation | 264 S.W.2d 332,38 A.L.R.2d 1128,364 Mo. 544 |
| Parties | , 38 A.L.R.2d 1128 OSBORNE v. OWSLEY, Sheriff. PONICK v. OWSLEY, Sheriff. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John S. Cannon, J. K. Owens, I. I. Ozar, Kansas City, for petitioner.
Carl E. Enggas, James A. Moore, David M. Proctor, Jr., Kansas City, amici curiae. Richard K. Phelps of counsel.
These are companion habeas corpus cases which have been brought here on transfer from the Kansas City Court of Appeals and consolidated for hearing. The Ponick case, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 673, treats the facts and law at greater length. The Osborne case, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 676, simply follows it. Both petitioners are lawyers and were attorneys for the plaintiff in a case captioned Ernest Smith v. Kansas City Public Service Company, a suit for damages for personal injuries arising out of a purported collision between a streetcar and a motorcycle, which was tried in March, 1949, in the Jackson County circuit court.
After investigation of their professional conduct by members of the bar appointed as amici curiae by the judge of the trial court both lawyers were charged with subornation of perjury for having brought into the trial of the Smith case as paid eyewitnesses certain persons whom they knew actually had no personal knowledge of the casualty, and of fabricating the testimony which those witnesses gave. The prosecuting attorney filed against both lawyers complaints for criminal contempt which charged the foregoing facts. The circuit court adjudged them guilty, and sentenced Osborne 360 days in jail and a $1,000 fine, and Ponick to six months in the county jail and imposed a fine of $500.
The petitioners Ponick and Osborne maintain the complaints against them were barred by Section 541.210 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., a one-year statute of limitation. The Ponick case sets out the statute with italics as shown below, but it eliminates the parts we have bracketed. 'No person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any offense, other than felony, [or for any fine or forfeiture] unless the [indictment be found or] prosecution be instituted within one year after the commission of the offense, [or incurring the fine or forfeiture.]'
That is to say, it would eliminate the phrases concerning a fine, forfeiture and indictment, and make the section read: 'No person shall be prosecuted, tried or punished for any offense other than felony, unless the prosecution be instituted within one year after the commission of the offense.'
The respondent sheriff contends a criminal contempt is not an offense within the meaning of the Missouri statutes, citing Section 556.010, which provides: 'The terms 'crime,' 'offense,' and 'criminal offense,' when used in this or any other statute, shall be construed to mean any offense, as well misdemeanor as felony, for which any punishment by imprisonment or fine, or both, may by law be inflicted.' So also it was held in Osborne v. Purdome, Mo.banc, 250 S.W.2d 159, 160, a habeas corpus case where the petitioner was held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Robinson v. Hartenbach
...Respondent argues Premise Number 1 is erroneous because criminal contempt is not a crime but is sui generis and cites Osborne v. Owsley, 364 Mo. 544, 264 S.W.2d 332 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 822, 75 S.Ct. 35, 99 L.Ed. 648 (1954). This argument fails to comprehend that a proceeding sui ......
-
State v. Baldwin, 48967
...proceeding is not a criminal case. Osborne v. Purdome, Mo.Banc, 244 S.W.2d 1005, 1011[4-9], 29 A.L.R.2d 1141; Osborne v. Owsley, Banc, 264 Mo. 544, 264 S.W.2d 332, 38 A.L.R.2d 1128. However, a judgment in contempt for perjury has been considered pertinent upon the question of a witness's cr......
-
Ballengee v. State, 2980
...not, therefore, a crime. See State ex rel. Beck v. Lush, 1959, 168 Neb. 367, 95 N.W.2d 695, 72 A.L.R.2d 426; Osborne v. Owsley, 1954, 364 Mo. 544, 264 S.W.2d 332, 38 A.L.R.2d 1128; and Niemeyer v. McCarty, 1943, 221 Ind. 688, 51 N.E.2d 365, 154 A.L.R. 115. Illustrative of this proposition, ......
-
Ackelson v. Brown
...defendant. Referring to the effect of such a verdict the Supreme Court of Missouri in Dryden v. St. Louis Public Service Co., supra, said 264 S.W.2d 332: "The jury having found for defendant on the issue of liability, consideration of the issue of damages was never reached by the jury and, ......