State v. Akers
| Decision Date | 08 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22949.,22949. |
| Parties | STATE v. AKERS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.
Delbert Akers was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Convicted of grand larceny in the circuit court of Dunklin county, defendant has appealed. He has not presented or filed a bill of exceptions.
An information in two counts was filed by the prosecuting attorney. The second count was dismissed, and he was convicted on the first count, which is as fellows:
"George Smith, prosecuting attorney, within and for the county of Dunklin and the state of Missouri, upon his oath of office as such prosecuting attorney, and upon his hereto appended oath, and upon his knowledge, information, and belief, informs the court and charges that on the 16th day of June, 1917, in the county of Dunklin and the state of Missouri, one Delbert Akers, certain neat cattle, to wit, one red cow and one black Jersey cow of the value of $35 each, of the property and chattels of Lee Cook, then and there did feloniously steal, take, and carry away."
Defendant was formally arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty to the foregoing charge, and a jury, being impaneled to try said cause, returned into court the following verdict:
In due time defendant filed his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, both of which were overruled, and an appeal was granted to this court.
No bill of exceptions having been presented and filed in the case, the only matter before us for review is the record proper.
Hall & Billings, of Kennett, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Robert J. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
REEVES, C. (after stating the facts as above).
1. This case was here on a former appeal (Mo. Sup.) 213 S. W. 424. At that time it was reversed and remanded, because the jury found him guilty as charged in the first count of the information and not guilty on the second count. By reference to the two counts of the information, the court noted that appellant was charged in both counts with the identical crime. It was held that the verdict was contradictory in view of this, and the cause was reversed and remended.
Upon receiving the mandate of this court, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the second count of said information, and proceeded to try the appellant upon the first count, resulting in the conviction, as above stated.
2. Under the law it becomes our duty to consider the record proper, and to determine whether the information is sufficient, and whether the judgment rendered was authorized by law. Section 4106, R. S. 1919; State v. Hodges (Mo. Sup.) 237 S. W. 1000; State v. Hodges (Mo. Sup.) 234 S. W. 789.
3. The information heretofore set out contains every necessary element required to charge the crime of grand larceny, and is sufficient both as to form and substance. Section 3312, R. S. 1919; State v. Jenkins (Mo. Sup.) 213 S. W. 796, loc. cit. 797, 798; State v. Jones (Mo. Sup.) 225 S. W. 898, loc. cit. 899; State v. Hodges (Mo. Sup.) 234 S W. 789, loc. cit. 790; State v. Hodges (Mo. Sup.) 237 S. W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Willard
... ... (1) The ... information in this cause is sufficient. Sec. 4064, R. S ... 1929; State v. Conley, 123 S.W.2d 103; State v ... Sagerser, 84 S.W.2d 918; State v. Gentry, 55 ... S.W. 941. (2) The verdict is in proper form. State v ... Akers, 242 S.W. 660; State v. Harbeston, 51 ... S.W.2d 533, 330 Mo. 799. (3) Improper remark of counsel not ... ground for reversal. State v. Banton, 111 S.W.2d ... 516, 342 Mo. 45; State v. Greer, 12 S.W.2d 87; ... State v. Barker, 18 S.W.2d 19, 322 Mo. 1173; 17 C ... J., 297, sec. 3638; ... ...
-
State v. Peters
...held only that double jeopardy did not "bar a further prosecution under the count upon which the conviction was had"), and State v. Akers, 242 S.W. 660 (Mo.1922) (affirming, after remand, conviction on a single count, the other count having been dismissed "upon receiving the mandate of this......
-
State v. Tomlinson
...(4) The verdict in this case is sufficient and is responsive to the charge. Sec. 4456, R.S. 1939; State v. Hodges, 237 S.W. 1000; State v. Akins, 242 S.W. 660; v. Haberston, 51 S.W.2d 553, 330 Mo. 799; State v. Hodges, 234 S.W. 790; State v. Batey, 67 S.W.2d 450; State v. Bishop, 231 Mo. 41......
-
The State v. Barker
...terms, been overruled by this court, in respect to the above matter, as will be seen by reference to the following later cases: State v. Akers, 242 S.W. 660-1; State v. Huffman, 238 S.W. l. c. 435; State Hodges, 234 S.W. l. c. 790; State v. Jones, 225 S.W. l. c. 899. The indictment is based......