State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 31 October 1869 |
| Citation | 45 Mo. 64 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. THADDEUS COOPER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Patrick & Drummond, and Cline, Jamison & Day, for appellant.
C. P. Johnson, circuit attorney, for respondent.
Defendant was indicted and convicted in the Criminal Court for robbery. The bill of exceptions states that after the close of the evidence “the court, at the request of the defendant's counsel, and in his presence and the circuit attorney, gave oral instructions to the jury upon the law of the case.”
This is assigned for error, and is the only question worthy of attention in this court. What the instructions were is not inserted, and the probabilities are that it would be impossible to arrive at anything like accuracy were the attempt made.
The statutory provision in regard to criminal trials is that “the court shall not, on the trial of the issue on any indictment, sum up or comment upon the evidence, or charge the jury as to matter of fact, unless requested so to do by the prosecuting attorney and the defendant or his counsel; but the court may instruct the jury on any point of law arising in the cause, which instructions shall be in writing.” (Gen. Stat. 1865, ch. 213, § 30.)
This section was obviously intended to change the common-law practice in regard to summing up and commenting on evidence, and prohibit the court from doing so except at the request of the parties. But when it comes to giving instructions upon any point of law arising in the case, the instructions are expressly required to be in writing. Every person knows how difficult it is to obtain an exact account of words, in writing, spoken in the midst of a trial. The whole case may turn upon the jury misunderstanding a single word used by the judge. When it is necessary to make out a bill of exceptions, it will often be found difficult--indeed, quite impossible--for the judge himself to remember, with anything like precision, the language used in declaring the law. The accused may thus be prejudiced with the jury, and be denied the right of rectifying the mistake in the appellate court. The law was enacted to guard, as far as possible, against misapprehension by the jury of the law of the case, as promulgated and laid down by the court, and, if error was committed, to secure a full and fair bill of exceptions.
There is no authorization, at the request or by the consent of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harper
...examination of the panel being qualified to try the case and refusing to discharge the panel so instructed and order a new panel. State v. Cooper, 45 Mo. 64; State Hendrickson, 130 S.W.2d 503; State v. Potter, 125 Mo.App. 465; Secs. 4070, 4083, R.S. 1939. (3) The giving of Instruction 1 was......
-
State v. Greenlee
...counsel might refer to determine alleged error. Such are the purposes of the statute as viewed by the Supreme Court of Missouri in State v. Cooper, 45 Mo. 64. To that extent the policy is no doubt sound. It is obvious, however, that, if the requirement of writing and of delivery to the jury......
-
Hogan v. Kansas City Public Service Co.
... ... Instruction P-3, as modified. Sec. 967, R. S. 1929; Berst ... v. Moxon, 163 Mo.App. 133; State v. Cooper, 45 ... Mo. 64; Malleson v. State, 6 Mo. 399; City v ... Fisher, 61 Mo.App. 511; Sec. 1417, R. S. 1919; Sec ... 5229, R. S. 1909; ... ...
-
State v. Myers
... ... of a criminal action, a disregard of the legislative command ... is a violation of the law, is generally held to be error per ... se, and cannot be said to be harmless error. State v. Porter, ... 35 La.Ann. 535; People v. Sanford, 43 Cal. 29; State v ... Cooper, 45 Mo. 64; State v. Bennington, 44 Kan. 583, 25 P ... 91; State v. Harding, 81 Iowa 599, 47 N.W. 877; Train v ... Sisti, 146 Misc. 362, 262 N.Y. 167, 175-176; State v. Fisher, ... 23 Mont. 504, 59 P. 903; 2 Thomp. Trials, 2d ed., Sec. 2375; ... State v. Mitchell, supra; Clark v. State, 138 ... ...