State v. Coulter

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WAGNER
• Citation: State v. Coulter, 46 Mo. 564 (Mo. 1870)
• Decision Date: 31 October 1870
• Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN COULTER, Defendant in Error.

46 Mo. 564

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff in Error,

v.JOHN COULTER, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1870.

Error to Sixth District Court.

Hollister, with Attorney-General, for plaintiff in error, cited Train & Heard's Prec. & Indict. 50-4, 459-63; Wagn. Stat. 1090, § 27.Geo. H. Shields and Lancaster, for defendant in error.

The indictment fails to set forth any offense. There is no surplusage. No words can be stricken out of the indictment and make it good, without inserting others in lieu thereof. The indictment did not properly set forth the material allegations constituting the crime of an attempt to commit robbery. (Wharton's Prec. & Indict. 1048 et seq.)

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was indicted and convicted in the Ralls County Circuit Court of attempting to commit a robbery. A motion was made in arrest of judgment, and sustained on account of the insufficiency of the indictment. The indictment is informal and inartificial, and charges the defendant with the commission of the crime by attempting to put him, “the said Bartlett Homes, in fear of some immediate injury to his person, with the intent feloniously to take the property of Bartlett Homes from his person, in his presence and against his will, and thirty-five dollars of money of the goods and chattels, personal property and money of the said Bartlett Homes, from his person, in his presence, and against the will of said Bartlett Homes, and then and there feloniously and violently to seize, take, steal, and carry away,” etc.

There is much other matter contained in the indictment which is irrelevant and redundant, but...