State v. Batson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1861 |
| Citation | 31 Mo. 343 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error, v. BATSON, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In an indictment, under the statute which says that “every person who shall wilfully and maliciously break, destroy or injure,” &c., the property of another (R. C. 1855, p. 584, § 60,) the offence is well described as a breaking alone, or as destroying, or as injuring, as either act is to commit an offence, and one or all these things may be charged, according to the circumstances of the case.
2. Under that statute no negative averment is necessary.
Error to Greene Circuit Court.
Knott, (attorney general,) for the State.
I. The indictment is sufficient under the statute. (R. C. 1855, p. 384, § 60.) It avers that the defendant wilfully and maliciously broke and injured the door of a dwelling house, specifying to whom the same belonged, and the time and place the offence was committed, which is all the description of the offence necessary under the law.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for malicious injury to property under section 60, art. 3d, act concerning crimes and their punishments, and his fine assessed at five dollars. A motion in arrest of judgment being sustained, the State brings the case here by writ of error.
The indictment contains three counts, the first of which charges that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., with force and arms did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously break and injure the door of a dwelling house, the same being then and there the property of one Samuel W. Helton, contrary, & c. The second charges an unlawful, wilful and malicious breaking with force and arms of the windows of a certain dwelling house, the same being then and there the property of one Samuel W. Helton, contrary, &c. The third count is that the defendant, on, &c., at, &c., with force and arms, did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously destroy a certain fence and enclosure, the same being then and there the property of one Samuel W. Helton, concluding as above.
The statute on which this indictment is framed declares that every person who shall wilfully and maliciously break, destroy, or injure the door or window of any dwelling house, shop, store, or other house or building, or sever therefrom, or from any gate, fence or enclosure, or any part thereof, or any material of which it is formed; or sever from the freehold any produce thereof or anything...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClure v. People
...can be drawn therefrom one way or the other, it is that such a union may be made; for the court in its opinion cites with approval State v. Batson, 31 Mo. 343, and State v. West, Mo.App. 309. In the former case the indictment was under a statute declaring that every person who 'shall willfu......
-
State v. Hall
... ... Rader, ... special counsel ... (1) ... Where the statute creates an offense, an indictment which ... follows the words of the statute is sufficient. State v ... West, 158 Mo. 317; State v. Van Wye, 136 Mo ... 241; State v. Addock, 65 Mo. 592; State v ... Batson, 31 Mo. 344; State v. Presbury, 13 Mo ... 34; State v. Fulton, 19 Mo. 680; State v ... Johnson, 93 Mo. 317; State v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 303; ... State v. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386; State v ... Davis, 106 Mo. 230; State v. McDaniel, 40 ... Mo.App. 356; State v. Buck, 43 Mo.App. 443. An ... ...
-
State v. West
... ... when this is so it is sufficient to charge the offense in the ... language of the statute. In this case the indictment states ... every fact descriptive of the offense as defined in the ... statute and is sufficient. [ State v. Batson, 31 Mo ... 343; State v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Van ... Wye, 136 Mo. 227, 37 S.W. 938.] ... But the ... indictment is good according to the analogies of criminal ... pleading. The offense under the statute is not robbery but ... stopping a train with intent to ... ...
-
State v. Hall
...statute. In this case the indictment states every fact descriptive of the offenses as defined in the statute, and is sufficient." State v. Batson, 31 Mo. 343; State v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Van Wye, 136 Mo. 227, 37 S. W. 938, 58 Am. St. Rep. 627. In the Van Wye Case it is said at pa......