State v. Cook

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: State v. Cook, 58 Mo. 546 (Mo. 1875)
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAM COOK, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 Mo. 546

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

v.WILLIAM COOK, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1875.

Appeal from Bates Circuit Court.

Page & Holcomb, for Appellant.

In criminal casesthe court will reverse the judgment and grant a new trial if the verdict is against the evidence.(State vs. Mansfield, 41 Mo., 470;State vs. Marshall, 47 Mo., 378.)

Attorney General, for Respondent.

This court will not review the facts, after they have been passed upon by a jury under proper instructing and legal testimony, unless the verdict is totally unsupported by evidence.(36 Mo., 143;28 Mo., 248, 593;29 Mo., 456;30 Mo., 262, 498;36 Mo., 338;37 Mo., 343;33 Mo., 260.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

All the objections, urged for a reversal of the judgment in this case, are technical and devoid of merit.

The indictment was found in the Bates Circuit Court, and charged the defendant with larceny in taking and carrying away certain cattle.

He was convicted, and his punishment assessed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.A change of venue was awarded to Cass county, where the trial was had, and it is now urged that the record fails to show that the indictment was found in any court in this State, or by any grand jury, or that the court, in which the indictment was alleged to have been found, was in session at the time.

But this point cannot be sustained.The record shows, that at the July term, 1873, of the Bates Circuit Court, a grand jury was impaneled, sworn and charged, which found the indictment against the defendant and returned it into court.The record states the existence of all the essential and necessary facts, and whatever minor details may have been left out are abundantly cured by our statute in reference to criminal practice.(Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 27.)There is nothing in the objection, that it is not shown that the indictment was filed in the Bates county Circuit Court, and that it was not certified by the clerk of that court to Cass county.

It appears that the grand jury returned into court, and presented, the indictment as a true bill, and the clerk expressly certifies that the record transmitted constitutes a full, complete and true transcript of the proceedings had, and made a record in the cause, together with the original papers filed therein, not forming a part of the record.This certificate is sufficient.It is evident that the indictment was sent to the court where the trial was had, and it is difficult to perceive how the defendant was prejudiced by the want of explicitness on the part of the clerk as to whether he sent the original, or certified a copy of the indictment.It is again insisted, that it does not appear that any capias was ever issued for the defendant, or that he ever appeared in the court, except by attorney.Both of these objections are however unavailing, and the latter is expressly negatived by the record.

It is shown that at the time the indictment was returned the defendant was in court, and pleaded not guilty; he then gave a bond for his appearance, and petitioned for a change of venue, which was awarded in accordance with his application.Under these circumstances, no capias for his arrest was necessary.It would have been an idle and unmeaning ceremony.When the trial took place the record expressly states, that the defendant was present in proper person.

There is no merit in the point raised, that the verdict was bad, because it did not specify the degree of offense of which the defendant was found guilty.The indictment contains but one count, and that charged the defendant with the commission of the crime of grand...