State v. Coupenhaver
| Decision Date | 31 January 1867 |
| Citation | 39 Mo. 430 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. JOHN M. COUPENHAVER, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Polk Circuit Court.
This case is submitted upon the record, without briefs. We have examined the record and find no sufficient ground for the reversal of the judgment. A motion for a new trial was overruled. The ground of the motion was that the jurors had rendered the verdict upon an agreement among themselves, when they retired, that they would take a vote upon the question of guilty or not guilty: and that if a majority should be in favor of finding the defendant guilty, or not guilty, the verdict should be rendered accordingly; and the defendant offered to call two of the jurors to prove the fact. This testimony was excluded. The law is well settled that a traverse juror cannot be a witness to prove misbehavior in the jury in regard to their verdict--Pratte v. Coffman, 33 Mo. 71; Sawyer v. Hann. & St. Jo. R. R. Co., 37 Mo. 264.
Another objection was made a ground for a motion in arrest, that the record did not show when the indictment was found and returned into court. It was endorsed “a true bill” signed by the foreman, but the date of the filing does nor appear; but it sufficiently appears that the indictment was filed and a capias issued for the arrest of the defendant. This omission constitutes no value ground for a motion in arrest--State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432.
Some other reasons were assigned for the motion in arrest. They were immaterial, and need not be specially noticed.
Judgment affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado
...are too numerous to be cited"); Tucker v. Town Council of South Kingstown, 5 R.I. 558, 560 (1859) (collecting cases); State v. Coupenhaver, 39 Mo. 430 (1867) ("The law is well settled that a traverse juror cannot be a witness to prove misbehavior in the jury in regard to their verdict"); Pe......
-
Shearin v. Fletcher/Mayo/Associates, Inc.
...was eliminated in State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149 (1877). Relying on Sawyer v. Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 37 Mo. 240 (1866), State v. Coupenhaver, 39 Mo. 430 (1867), and State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40 (1874), the court adopted as the Missouri view the strict Mansfield rule, that jurors may n......
-
Finer v. Nichols
... ... Modern Woodmen, 157 ... Mo.App. 15; Bates v. Holliday, 31 Mo.App. 162; ... Gutzweiler's Adm'r v. Lackman, 39 Mo. 100; ... State v. Rothschild, 69 Mo. 55; Meyer v ... Lewis, 43 Mo.App. 417; Mueller v. Wolff, 56 ... Mo.App. 40. (6) An instruction should not submit to the ... impeach the result of their deliberations by affidavit, or ... otherwise assail the verdict. [See State v ... Coupenhaver, 39 Mo. 430; State ex rel. v. Gage ... Bros., 52 Mo.App. 464, 470; Jobe's Adm'r v ... Weaver, 77 Mo.App. 665.] But, be this as it may, here ... ...
-
Milbourne v. Robison
... ... disregard such affidavit and refuse consideration. Pratte ... v. Coffman, 33 Mo. 71; Sawyer v. Railway, 37 ... Mo. 264; State v. Underwood, 75 Mo. 51; State v ... Copenhaver, 39 Mo. 430; McFarland v. Bellows, ... 49 Mo.App. 311; State v. Branstatter, 65 Mo. 156; ... ...