State v. Cruise

• Decision Date: 31 March 1852
• Citation: 16 Mo. 391
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CRUISE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

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. 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 on the record, either as given or refused. No point of law appears by the record to have been raised in the court below. The evidence was left to the jury, and without any declaration of law from the court, by either party, they found the guilt of the defendant.

This is not such a case as justifies the court in interfering with the finding and judgment of the court and jury below. We have looked into the indictment, and, finding that sufficient, the judgment below will not be disturbed. The presumption is in favor of the verdict. Unless the record affirmatively overthrows this presumption, we cannot disturb it, and it must do this in such a manner as to show that manifest injustice and wrong have been done the prisoner. 4 Pike, 89.

In the case of Roberts v. State of Georgia, 3 Kelly, 322, speaking of new trials, the court said: “The second ground (that is, of the motion for new trial,) admits that there was some evidence against the prisoner, but asserts that the weight of it was in his favor. Whether this was so or not, was a question for the jury to determine; their verdict negatived the idea that it was. It is their duty...