State v. Batchelor
| Decision Date | 31 October 1851 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI v. JOHN BATCHELOR, THE STATE OF MISSOURI v. SOLOMON G. KITCHEN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEALS FROM STODDARD CIRCUIT COURT.
LACKLAND, for The State. The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment. The indictment is in the language of the statute creating the offense, and is therefore sufficient. The description of the weapon is sufficient to show that it was a deadly weapon, with the means and force likely to produce death or great bodily harm, which suffices for allegations to that effect in the indictment. Jennings v. The State, 9 Mo. R. 863. But supposing that the offense described in § 34, art. 2 of the act concerning Crimes and their Punishments, Rev. Code 1845, p. 350, be insufficiently set forth in the indictment, it is submitted that the offense described in the 37th section of the same act, is sufficiently set forth, and for that reason the court below ought not to have quashed the indictment.
The indictments were quashed in both of these cases, and the circuit attorney excepted to the opinion of the court in each case, as he did in the case of the State against Richard Wall, just decided by this court, without tendering or filing any bill of exceptions. These cases then are justly within the principles set forth in the opinion of this court in the case of State v. Wall, to which we refer. The judgment in each is affirmed, the other Judges concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Settle
...621; State v. Henderson, 109 Mo. 292; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662; State v. Thurston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Batchelor, 15 Mo. 208; State Fortune, 10 Mo. 466. (b) Defendant's motion was a motion to quash. Motions in like language, purpose and result have many times ......
-
State v. Settle
...App. 621; State v. Henderson, 109 Mo. 292; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662; State v. Thurston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313; State v. Batchelor, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Fortune, 10 Mo. 466. (b) Defendant's motion was a motion to quash. Motions in like language, purpose and result have man......
-
State v. Brown
...ruled from an early day that indictments may be quashed for causes not appearing on their face. State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208; State v. Batchelor et al., 15 Mo. 207; 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 319, 440, and note. While we are clear that this is not such a defect as could be reached by demurrer, yet ......
- State v. McKay