State v. Blakeley
| Decision Date | 22 November 1904 |
| Citation | 83 S.W. 980,184 Mo. 187 |
| Parties | STATE v. BLAKELEY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
F. F. Harl, for plaintiff in error. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.
The indictment in this case is substantially the same as in State v. Rosenblatt (decided at this term) 83 S. W. 975. It may be said that this indictment charges more than one separate and distinct offense in one count. It is unnecessary for this court to say, upon the record before us, that this joining of two or more offenses in one count would subject it to successful attack by motion to quash or demurrer, or that defendant could have compelled an election by the state upon which charge it would proceed. It is sufficient to say that no such steps were taken in the trial court, and objections of that character are not open for examination for the first time in this court. State v. Fox, 148 Mo. 517, 50 S. W. 98, and cases cited; Bishop, New Crim. Proc. vol. 1, § 442. There was a plea of guilty to the charges contained in the indictment, and judgment upon that plea.
Adopting the views expressed in the Rosenblatt Case, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
GANTT, P. J., concurs. BURGESS, J., absent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Keating
...as to the second count, in that it attempts to charge two separate and distinct statutory offenses in one and the same count. Sate v. Blakley, 184 Mo. 187; State Dale, 141 Mo. 284; State v. Huffman, 136 Mo. 58. (2) The second count is bad for the following reasons: It fails to charge and al......
-
State v. Hogle
...besides the court instructed alone on the charge pertaining to the crap table and defendant was convicted alone on that charge. State v. Blakely, 184 Mo. 187; State Harding, 184 Mo. 190; State v. Hartzell, 184 Mo. 191; State v. Cannon, 134 S.W. 513. OPINION NIXON, P. J. Appellant was convic......
- State v. Etchman
- State v. Etchman