State v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 31 October 1876 |
| Citation | 63 Mo. 300 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. JOHN BARNETT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court.
Ewing & Smith, with Pope, for Appellant, cited: Wagn. Stat. p. 1103, § 15; State vs. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; State vs. Buckner, 25 Mo. 167; State vs. Cross, 27 Mo. 332; State vs. Braunschweig, 36 Mo. 397; State vs. Ott, 49 Mo. 326; State vs. Cheek, and State vs. Montgomery, decided at the present term of this court, (63 Mo. 296.
Thos. Hockaday, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent, cited: Shotwell vs. State, 37 Mo. 259.
I. The defendant, indicted for and convicted of grand larceny, has appealed to this court, and since it nowhere appears in the record that he was ever arraigned or pleaded to the indictment, or that he was personally present during the trial, or at any time during its progress, or at the rendition of the verdict, the judgment of conviction cannot stand. Our statute (Wagn. Stat. p. 1103, § 15,) expressly requires a person indicted for a felony to be “personally present during the trial,” and our repeated decisions are uniform in requiring that the record shall show this. (State vs. Jones, 61 Mo. 232, and cases cited; State vs. Ott, 49 Mo. 326; State vs. Cheek; and State vs. Montgomery, 63 Mo. 296.)
II. A motion has been filed on behalf of the State to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the bill of exceptions was not signed by the judge, and we are referred to Shotwell vs. State (37 Mo. 359). In that case, however, not only was there no bill of exceptions, but there was no appeal or writ of error, and the cause was merely stricken from the docket. The statute, (Wagn. Stat. 1115, § 20) after providing that in a criminal case no assignment of error shall be necessary, commands that we proceed and render judgment on the record before us. This evidently imposes the duty upon us of examining the whole record, regardless of the point of irregularity in the signing of the bill of exceptions. Such an examination discloses in the present instance the defect before adverted to.
The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded, and if, as stated, the defendant is in the penitentiary, in execution of his sentence, an order will be made requiring his removal therefrom, and delivery into the custody of the jailor of the county from whence he came. (State vs. Barnes, 59 Mo. 154.)
Judge Wagner absent, the other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...but on the return of the appeal it becomes the duty of this court to `render judgment on the record' before us. Id. p. 1115, § 20; State v. Barnett, 63 Mo. 300. The case of State v. Armstrong, 46 Mo. 588, where the judgment was affirmed because the defendant failed to prosecute his appeal b......
-
State v. Bennett
... ... there having a license for that purpose continuing in force, ... contrary to the form of the statute," etc. Although the ... opinion therein does not discuss the sufficiency of that ... indictment, the law then, as now, imposed on the supreme ... court (as was said in State v. Barnett (1876), 63 ... Mo. 300) "the duty of examining the whole record" ... (Wag. Stat. 1872, p. 1115, sec. 20; R. S. 1889, sec. 4297), ... and [102 Mo. 367] the judgment of conviction in State v ... Myers , above, was affirmed. So it may be fairly assumed ... that the court in that case ... ...
-
Barrett v. Davis
... ... The extension of time ... was such as to release her as surety, and it devolved on ... defendants on this state of facts to establish by some ... unequivocal act that Mrs. Barrett had ratified the ... unauthorized act of her attorney, Sparks ... ...
-
State v. Grate
...v. Braunschweig, 36 Mo. 397; The State v. Ott, 49 Mo. 326; The State v. Barnes, 59 Mo. 154; The State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; The State v. Barnett, 63 Mo. 300; The State v. Cheek 63 Mo. 364; The State v. Allen, 64 Mo. 67; The State v. Dooly, 64 Mo. 146; Meredeth v. People, 84 Ill. 480; Maurer......