State v. Cruise
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | RYLAND |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 391 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CRUISE, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
16 Mo. 391
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
v.
CRUISE, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
March Term, 1852.
1. The Supreme Court will not disturb the finding of facts by a jury in a criminal case, unless manifest injustice and wrong have been done; nor will it control the discretion of the court below in granting new trials, unless in cases strong and unequivocal.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Blennerhassett & Shreve, for appellant, contend that the evidence in this case does not sustain the indictment, and that the verdict of the jury is erroneous, even if the instructions were proper. There was no proof of violence or intimidation, one of which must exist to constitute the offense, in either of its three degrees known to the statute. Rev. Stat. sec. 25, p. 358. There is no material difference between the elements of the offense at common law and as defined in the 25th sec.
[16 Mo. 392]
of our statute, p. 358. See Archbold's Crim. Plead. 224, 227; 2 East. P. C. 702; Id. 103; 1 Hale, 534; Chitty's Cr. Law, 111, 840 and 5. The instructions are erroneous.
Lackland, circuit attorney, for State.
It does not appear from the record that any instructions were asked or given. The question whether defendant was guilty of the crime charged is one purely of fact, and the jury have found the fact against the defendant, and the evidence is sufficient to support the charge. It is the settled law of this court that the verdict of a jury will not be disturbed if there be any testimony to support it.
Authorities cited: Commonwealth v. Snelling, 4 Binn. 379; Kerley v. State, 3 Humph. 289, see p. 304; 3 Gratt. 594, p. 611; Hill's Case, 2 Grat. p. 602; Roberts v. State, 3 Kelly, 322-3; Meyers v. State, 2 English's Rep. 174; 4 Pike, 87, Waller v. State.
RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted in the St. Louis Criminal Court for robbery. He was convicted, and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He moved for a new trial, which, being refused, he excepted, and brings the case here by appeal. It seems from the record that the evidence is saved by the bill of exceptions; but no instructions appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morgan
...Duval, Gilp. 356; State v. Hammond, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) 91; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340; Copeland v. State, 7 Humph. 479; State v. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391; [1 Mo.App. 24]Grayson v. Commonwealth, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 613; State v. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487; State v. Fisher, 2 Nott & M. (S. C.) 261; State v. P......
-
Cornish v. Territory
...by the court trying the cause, in their discretion, the decision denying the same is not examinable by an appellate court. State v. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391; Herber v. State, 7 Tex. 69." "If there had been no part of the evidence which, if true, would sustain the verdict, then an error of law wou......
-
State v. Jaeger
...the defendant was not a “dram-shop keeper.” The averment that he had no “wine and beer house license,” was sufficient. (State vs. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391.) II. The act of March 25th, 1872 (Wagn. Stat. §§ 28-33, inclusive of p. 554), did not repeal, invalidate, or in any manner affect section 25,......
-
State v. Hays
...is left to the direction of the court, and this court will not [23 Mo. 289]interfere with its exercise. (R. C. 1845, p. 878, 879; 16 Mo. 391.) II. Brown's threats were properly excluded. (17 Mo. 544; 14 Maine, 248; 9 Metc. 110; 4 Harrington, 562; 4 Iredell, 409; Whart. Crim. Law, 234, 235, ......
-
State v. Morgan
...Duval, Gilp. 356; State v. Hammond, 5 Strobh. (S. C.) 91; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340; Copeland v. State, 7 Humph. 479; State v. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391; [1 Mo.App. 24]Grayson v. Commonwealth, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 613; State v. Lyon, 12 Conn. 487; State v. Fisher, 2 Nott & M. (S. C.) 261; State v. P......
-
Cornish v. Territory
...by the court trying the cause, in their discretion, the decision denying the same is not examinable by an appellate court. State v. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391; Herber v. State, 7 Tex. 69." "If there had been no part of the evidence which, if true, would sustain the verdict, then an error of law wou......
-
State v. Jaeger
...the defendant was not a “dram-shop keeper.” The averment that he had no “wine and beer house license,” was sufficient. (State vs. Cruise, 16 Mo. 391.) II. The act of March 25th, 1872 (Wagn. Stat. §§ 28-33, inclusive of p. 554), did not repeal, invalidate, or in any manner affect section 25,......
-
State v. Hays
...is left to the direction of the court, and this court will not [23 Mo. 289]interfere with its exercise. (R. C. 1845, p. 878, 879; 16 Mo. 391.) II. Brown's threats were properly excluded. (17 Mo. 544; 14 Maine, 248; 9 Metc. 110; 4 Harrington, 562; 4 Iredell, 409; Whart. Crim. Law, 234, 235, ......