State v. Brown
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 26456.,26456. |
| Citation | 279 S.W. 98 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROWN. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.
Lewis Brown was convicted of the unlawful sale of moonshine, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.
J. S. Clarke, of Ava, for appellant.
Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., and James A. Potter, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was charged, in an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Douglas county, with the unlawful and felonious sale of moonshine. Upon a trial he was convicted and his punishment assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.
There is nothing in the transcript of the proceedings of the trial court which we are authorized, under the rules of procedure, to review. Aside from a copy of the information and an entry that the cause came on to be heard by a special judge and a jury, there is an utter absence of those formal and requisite entries which constitute the record proper. This is followed by a transcript of the testimony, an examination of which is precluded because there is no record entry showing the filing of the motion for a new trial, which is as much a part of the record proper as that showing the filing of the bill of exceptions or any other act, entry, order, or judgment of the court during the course of the hearing, and required by orderly procedure to be entered on the court's minutes. Only such entries can be manifested by the record proper, and a recital of same in the bill of exceptions will avail nothing towards entitling the appellant to a review on appeal. We have uniformly held that the record proper should show the filing of the motion for a new trial, motions in arrest of judgment or to make more specific, etc., and, if such record does not show these facts, that the motions are not here for consideration. State ex rel. Woods, 234 Mo. loc. cit. 23, and cases, 136 S. W. 337. In addition, other than the recitals in the bill itself, there is no record showing that the bill was ever filed. A bill cannot certify to its own integrity. There is, therefore, nothing before us, except such portion of the record proper as we have noted. Bower v. Daniel, 198 Mo. loc. cit. 317, and cases, 95 S. W. 347. Other cases equally affirmatory of our limitations in appellate proceedings are St. Charles ex rel. Budd v. Deemar, 174 Mo. 122, 73 S. W. 469;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...exceptions and, therefore, only the record proper is for review. State v. Miller, 18 S.W. (2d) 492; State v. White, 288 S.W. 18; State v. Brown, 279 S.W. 98; State v. Dalton, 282 S.W. ELLISON, J. The appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Douglas County of passing and uttering a fo......
-
State v. Bliss
...(1); State v. Carel (Mo. Sup.) 69 S.W.(2d) 296 (1); State v. Thomas, 331 Mo. 299, 300 (1), 53 S.W.(2d) 266, 267 (1); State v. Brown, 312 Mo. 340, 342, 279 S. W. 98 (1); State v. Brown, 216 Mo. 375, 377, 115 S. W. 986. This is not a capital case. As to the responsibility of litigants or thei......
-
State v. Thomas
...of exceptions and, therefore, only the record proper is for review. State v. Miller, 18 S.W.2d 492; State v. White, 288 S.W. 18; State v. Brown, 279 S.W. 98; State v. 282 S.W. 736. OPINION Ellison, J. The appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Douglas County of passing and uttering......
-
State v. Ross
...Mo. 1276, 288 S.W. 18; State v. Harbeston, 330 Mo. 799, 51 S.W. (2d) 533; State v. Thomas, 331 Mo. 299, 53 S.W. (2d) 266; State v. Brown, 312 Mo. 340, 279 S.W. 98.] [2] If we had before us a complete transcript of the record proper it would be our duty to examine that record and, if we foun......