State v. Brock
| Decision Date | 21 February 1905 |
| Citation | 186 Mo. 457,85 S.W. 595 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROCK. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Where a prosecuting attorney by whom an information for an offense was signed was elected under the name of Lietellus Cunningham, his signature to the information as "L. Cunningham, Prosecuting Attorney," constituted a substantial compliance with Rev. St. 1899, § 2477, requiring that an information must be signed by the prosecuting attorney.
2. Failure of the prosecuting attorney to write his full name in the body of an information, or to sign his full name thereto, is no ground for quashing the same, under Rev. St. 1899, § 2535, providing that no indictment or information shall be deemed invalid for a defect which could not possibly have misled the defendant or prejudiced his rights on the merits of the case.
3. Rev. St. 1899, § 1844, provides that if any person shall, under or by promise of marriage, seduce an unmarried female, of good repute, under 21 years of age, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony. Held that, in a prosecution under such section, it was no defense that defendant at the time he made the promise to marry was under 21 years of age, and therefore could not have made a promise of marriage enforceable against him.
4. Where the record showed that defendant was present in court and waived formal arraignment to the information; that defendant, by his attorneys, and by leave of court, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, filed his demurrer to the evidence; and that defendant at the close of the state's evidence demurred thereto for grounds set forth in a motion which recited, "Now comes the defendant herein," etc. — it will be presumed, in the absence of evidence in the record to the contrary, that defendant was present during the whole of the trial, as required by Rev. St. 1899, § 2610.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; Argus Cox, Judge.
Noah Brock was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Rechow & Pufahl, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Polk county, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $300, and imprisonment for 30 days in the county jail of said county, under an information filed by L. Cunningham, the prosecuting attorney of said county, with the clerk of the circuit court of said county, on the 4th day of August, 1903, charging him with having feloniously, under promise of marriage, seduced and debauched one Iva Fender, an unmarried female of good repute and under 21 years of age. Defendant appeals.
Before the trial the defendant moved to quash the information upon several grounds; the only one of any importance being that, while the prosecuting attorney's full name was Lietellus Cunningham, and he was elected to office by that name, the information was signed, "L. Cunningham, Prosecuting Attorney." The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted. The contention of defendant is that, as the statute (section 2477, Rev. St. 1899) requires that an information must be signed by the prosecuting attorney, it means in the name of the person elected or appointed to that office; that is, in his official capacity, and under the name by which he was elected, commissioned, and qualified. It seems to us that a strict compliance with the letter of the statute should not be required, but that a substantial compliance with it is all that is necessary. The object of the statute in this regard is that the accused and court may know who makes the charge, and whether or not by the proper officer. The court is, of course, bound to take notice of its own officers, and that the information is presented in the name of the prosecuting attorney of the county. The record in this case recites that on the 29th day of June, 1904, there was filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of Polk county an information by the prosecuting attorney of said county, and then proceeds to set out the information, which begins as follows: "L. Cunningham, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Polk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ferguson
...assigned for the ruling, it is evident that it was on account of the non-prejudicial nature of the omission, as we held in State v. Brock, 186 Mo. 457, 85 S.W. 595, in on a similar objection, based on a failure of the prosecuting attorney to write his full name in the body of the informatio......
-
State v. Ferguson
...it is evident that it was on account of the nonprejudicial nature of the omission, as we held in State v. Brock, 186 Mo. loc. cit. 459, 85 S. W. 595, 105 Am. St. Rep. 625, 2 Ann. Cas. 768, in passing on a similar objection, based on a failure of the prosecuting attorney to write his full na......
-
The State v. Long
...verdict was rendered. [State v. Neighbors, 179 Mo. 351, 78 S.W. 591; State v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 92; State v. Yerger, 86 Mo. 33; State v. Brock, 186 Mo. 457, 85 S.W. 595 and 462.] As to the failure to show the presence of the defendant when his motions for new trial and in arrest were overruled,......
-
State v. Long
...179 Mo. 351, 78 S. W. 591; State v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 92; State v. Yerger, 86 Mo. 33; State v. Brock, 186 Mo., loc. cit. 461, 462, 85 S. W. 595, 105 Am. St. Rep. 625. As to the failure to show the presence of the defendant when his motion for new trial and in arrest were overruled, he made no r......