State v. Braunschweig
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Citation | 38 Mo. 587 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. HENRY BRAUNSCHWEIG, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Gottschalk and Mauro, for appellant.
Vastine, for respondent.
There is no foundation for the position assumed by the appellant's counsel, that the evidence offered for the State, and admitted by the court, was illegal, because it went to establish that the prisoner was guilty of a crime other than that charged in the indictment.
The whole matter was so completely blended, that the entire evidence was necessary to obtain a history of the particular transaction, and as such was perfectly admissible within the principle of the case of State v. Harrold, decided at this term (38 Mo. 496).
The instructions are unexceptionable, and no error being perceived the judgment is affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Seaman
...or the proof thereof may be admissible to show motive. People v. Marble, 38 Mich. 117; Phillips v. People, 57 Barb. 353; State v. Braunschweig, 38 Mo. 587; Burr v. Com., 4 Grat. 534; Heath's Case, 1 (Va.) 735; Rex v. Clewes, 4 Car. & P. 221; Brown v. Com., 76 Pa. St. 319; Johnson v. State, ......
-
Warfield v. Lindell
... ... The state of the evidence upon this matter was such as to present two distinct bases on which instructions might properly have been given to the jury. The ... ...