State v. Brookshire, No. 47100
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 325 S.W.2d 497 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. W. A. BROOKSHIRE, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 13 July 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 47100,No. 2 |
Page 497
v.
W. A. BROOKSHIRE, Appellant.
Page 498
W. A. Brookshire, Columbia, Betty Lyons, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Page 499
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Richard R. Nacy, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Defendant, W. A. Brookshire, was found guilty of the offense of issuing a check with intent to defraud in violation of Section 561.460 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.) and his punishment was fixed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for six months and a fine of $500. He has appealed from the ensuing judgment.
The offense of which defendant was found guilty is a misdemeanor. Sections 561.460 and 556.040. This court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal unless it is a case 'involving the construction of the Constitution of the United States or of this state' within the meaning of Article V, Section 3, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S. No other ground for jurisdiction in this court is urged by defendant, and without the need for extended discussion it is evident that no other basis for appellate jurisdiction in this court could exist.
In the jurisdictional statement in his brief defendant states that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is invoked 'for the reason that the defendant is challenging the constitutionality of Section 561.460 for the reason that this section of the statute permits imprisonment for debt, contrary to Section II of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri and for the further reason that the defendant was denied due process of law guaranteed to him under Article V and Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Section 10 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Missouri, and for the further reason that the defendant contends that his constitutional rights were violated in that he was placed in double jeopardy contrary to Article V of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.' A short statement of the facts and the procedural steps taken is necessary to the determination of the question of jurisdiction.
In the information orginally filed by the prosecuting attorney of Boone County the check upon which the charge was based was described as being dated 'Dec. 31, 1956.' After a change of venue was taken to Audrain County, and on the day the case was set for trial, the prosecuting attorney was given permission to amend the information to show that the date of the check was December 31, 1957. The defendant then asked for time to file a motion to dismiss 'in view of the amendment which has been made.' This request was denied.
The evidence at the trial disclosed that on or about December 31, 1956, the collector of Boone County received through the mail from defendant his personal check dated 'Dec. 31, 1957' in the amount of $728.18 in payment of real and personal property taxes assessed against property of the defendant for the year 1956. The collector did not notice that the check was post dated, and he depositeed the check with the Boone County National Bank to the credit of a fund maintained for tax money collected by him. The State Bank of Ste. Genevieve, Ste. Genevieve, Missouri, upon which the check was drawn, refused payment and the check was returned to the collector marked 'insufficient funds.'
Defendant has submitted twelve separate points in his brief to this court. We have read and reread carefully each and every point and we find not the slightest reference, even by inference, to the alleged constitutional questions in the jurisdictional statement which we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Spica, No. 50289
...These constitutional questions were not presented in the motion for new trial, and are not for review. State v. Brookshire, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 497. In addition, there was no objection on this basis to the testimony of Captain Vasel when he related the statements made to him by appellant. Appel......
-
City of Ferguson v. Nelson, No. 53434
...opportunity consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure, and thereafter preserved at all stages. State v. Brookshire, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 497; State v. Johnstone, Mo., 335 S.W.2d 199; State v. Meiers, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 478. We have not held, so far as we have found, that such questions mu......
-
State v. Garrette, No. 13617
...must be presented in the motion for a new trial, if any, and the point must be adequately covered in the briefs. State v. Brookshire, 325 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo.1959); Ingle v. City of Fulton, 260 S.W.2d 666, 667 (Mo.1953); State ex rel. Barnett v. Sappington, 260 S.W.2d 669, 671 Regarding def......
-
In re Van Orden, No. SC 89224.
...SVP statutory scheme. This Court, of course, should only address the issues presented in the points relied on. State v. Brookshire, 325 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo. banc 1959). A party cannot expand the issues presented before a court for review simply by discussing issues within the body of the ar......
-
State v. Spica, No. 50289
...These constitutional questions were not presented in the motion for new trial, and are not for review. State v. Brookshire, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 497. In addition, there was no objection on this basis to the testimony of Captain Vasel when he related the statements made to him by appellant. Appel......
-
City of Ferguson v. Nelson, No. 53434
...opportunity consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure, and thereafter preserved at all stages. State v. Brookshire, Mo., 325 S.W.2d 497; State v. Johnstone, Mo., 335 S.W.2d 199; State v. Meiers, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 478. We have not held, so far as we have found, that such questions mu......
-
State v. Garrette, No. 13617
...must be presented in the motion for a new trial, if any, and the point must be adequately covered in the briefs. State v. Brookshire, 325 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo.1959); Ingle v. City of Fulton, 260 S.W.2d 666, 667 (Mo.1953); State ex rel. Barnett v. Sappington, 260 S.W.2d 669, 671 Regarding def......
-
In re Van Orden, No. SC 89224.
...SVP statutory scheme. This Court, of course, should only address the issues presented in the points relied on. State v. Brookshire, 325 S.W.2d 497, 500 (Mo. banc 1959). A party cannot expand the issues presented before a court for review simply by discussing issues within the body of the ar......