State v. Bean
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 269 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. BEAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A general verdict upon an indictment containing several counts is good, if the punishment assessed does not exceed what may be imposed for the offence charged in any good count.
2. The supreme court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by juries in assessing punishment within the limit of the law, unless it has been manifestly abused.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Blennerhassett & Shreve, for appellant.
1. A general verdict upon an indictment containing several counts will not stand. ( State v. Montague, 2 McCord.) 2. The verdict is beyond the limit of the law. (R. C. 1845, p. 693.)
Clover, (circuit attorney,) for the state.
The defendant, Bean, was indicted for keeping and maintaining a bawdy house. The indictment contains two counts. The first count charges the defendant with keeping and maintaining a bawdy house; the second count is for keeping and maintaining a disorderly house.
The defendant, pleaded not guilty. The jury found a general verdict of guilty against the defendant, and assessed his punishment at twelve months' imprisonment in the county jail and a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars.
The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, and also for a new trial, which being overruled, he brings the case here by appeal.
The counsel for the defendant below, the appellant in this court, presents but one question for the revision of this court, and that is,
There was but little use to trouble this court with such a question as is here proposed. If any question in criminal jurisprudence can be considered settled, this one might, we think, be so looked upon.
It has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, ( United States v. Furlong, alias Hobson, 5 Wheat. 1845;) the Supreme Court of New York, (1 Johnson's Rep. 320; 3 Hill, 194;) Supreme Court of Indiana, (1 Blackford, 317;) Supreme Court of Maine, by our own court no longer ago than at July term, 1853 ( Jennings v. The State, 18 Mo. Rep. 445;) in Kentucky and in South Carolina; in Illinois; and, I presume I might have found it so decided by the courts of most of the states of this Union, had I thought the matter worthy of further examination. The offence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Hamey
...facts and assess the penalty? This very question has been passed upon, and it has always been held that such statutes are constitutional. 21 Mo. 269; 22 320; 1 Bishop's Crim. Law. sec. 934; 7 Ind. 332; 70 Iowa 442. It is constitutional to divide the responsibility of the assessment of the p......
-
State v. Simpson
...trial. Under these circumstances, the amendment was permissible. State v. Haycroft, 49 Mo. App. 488; State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556; State v. Bean, 21 Mo. 269; State v. Sutton, 64 Mo. 107; State v. Gilmore, 110 Mo. 1, 19 S. W. Further objection is made that, as the verdict in the justice court ......
-
State v. Montgomery
...will authorize a judgment upon it, if there is a single good count in the indictment to support it. (State v. Jennings, 18 Mo. 435; State v. Bean, 21 Mo. 269; 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 639.) One of the witnesses called by the State was allowed on his cross-examination to testify concerning the ......