State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Citation | 70 Mo. 633 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. BELL et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court. The case was tried before P. H. EDWARDS, ESQ., sitting as Temporary Judge.
AFFIRMED.
A. J. Harbison for appellants.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
This was an indictment for burglary and arceny upon which there was a conviction and sentence of the court to five years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The points relied on for a reversal of the judgment are, 1st. That an instruction asked by the counsel for defendants was refused. 2nd. That the record does not show affirmatively that the defendants were present during the entire trial. 3rd. That one of the jurors separated from the others during the trial without leave of the court or the consent of the defendants.
1. PRACTICE: instructions; evidence.
First, The instruction refused was this: “The court instructs the jury that the admissions made by the accused are regarded in law as the very weakest character of testimony, and should be received by the jury with the greatest caution.” In regard to such an instruction Judge Wagner, in State v. Hundley, 46 Mo. 421, remarks: (.) The doctrine is repeated in State v. Smith, 53 Mo. 267, in State v. Breeden, 58 Mo. 507, and in State v. Harris, 59 Mo. 550.
Second. The bill of exceptions states that defendant Bell was absent for a few minutes while the prosecuting attorney was making the closing argument for the State. This was held in the case of the State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 26, to be no ground for a reversal of the judgment.
Third. The agreed facts in regard to this point, are, that one of the jurors, Mr. Ragsdale, having, after the evidence had concluded and the argument for defendants closed, and before the State began the closing argument, separated himself from the jury without the knowledge or consent of the court or defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGuire
...... not require a finding that the statement was voluntarily. made, and no other instruction is given touching on that. issue. (c) The giving of such instruction is equivalent to a. directed verdict of guilty. Sec. 3694, R. S. 1929; State. v. Thomas, 250 Mo. 215; State v. Bell, 70 Mo. 633; State v. Caperton, 276 Mo. 314; State v. Nibarger, 255 Mo. 289; State v. Creely, 254 Mo. 382; State v. Walser, 318 Mo. 833; State v. Sanford, 317 Mo. 865; State v. Miller, 307 Mo. 365; State v. Johnson, 316 Mo. 86; State v. Lowry, 12 S.W.2d 469; State v. Hersh, ......
-
The State v. Jeffries
...... during such separation, improper influences had been exerted. over them. [ Whitney v. State, 8 Mo. 165; State. v. Mix, 15 Mo. 153; State v. Barton, 19 Mo. 227; [210 Mo. 332] State v. Igo, 21 Mo. 459;. State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 102; State v. Brannon, 45 Mo. 329; State v. Bell, 70 Mo. 633.] Under the revision of 1879 three new sections on this. subject were adopted, sections 1909, 1910 and 1966, Revised. Statutes 1879 (now secs. 2628, 2629 and 2688, R. S. 1899). These new sections were evidently designed to effect some. change in the conduct of criminal trials. ......
-
Brown v. State
...85 P. 1089; Doyle v. Commonwealth, 37 S.W. 153, 18 Ky.Law.Rep. 518; State v. Ricks, 32 La.Ann. 1098; State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627; State v. Bell, 70 Mo. 633; State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 22; People v. Bragle, 88 N.Y. 585, 42 Am.Rep. 269; Commonwealth v. Simon, 44 Pa.Super.Ct. 538. Warren v. State, ......
-
State v. McCrary
...of a defendant during the taking of evidence or during argument to be nonprejudicial error. Thus see State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. 627; State v. Bell, 70 Mo. 633; State v. Grate, 68 Mo. 22. This court stated, State v. Gonce, 87 Mo. loc. cit. 633, that to reverse a judgment on account of a brief vo......