State v. Day
| Decision Date | 15 November 1886 |
| Citation | 89 Mo. 559,1 S.W. 759 |
| Parties | STATE v. DAY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark circuit court.
Indictment for marking a steer belonging to another, with intention to steal it. Conviction. Defendant appeals.
The Attorney General, for the State. Givens & Howard, for appellant, Day.
At the April term, 1885, of the Clark county circuit court, defendant was tried upon an indictment charging him with feloniously marking a steer not his property, with the intention of stealing and converting the same to his own use. He was convicted, and from the judgment rendered has appealed to this court. It appears from the record that the names of three witnesses were indorsed on the back of the indictment returned by the grand jury, and that on the trial of the cause, after the witnesses whose names appeared on the back of the indictment had been examined, the state offered to examine two witnesses whose names did not thus appear. The defendant objected to the examination of these witnesses, on the ground that their names were not so indorsed, and on the ground of surprise. The court overruled the objection, and defendant on his appeal questions this action of the court, and relies upon it as a ground for reversing the judgment.
In the case of State v. Roy, 83 Mo. 268, it is held that, under section 1802, Rev. St., if the grand jury failed to indorse on an indictment the names of the witnesses upon whose evidence the indictment was found, that such failure would be a good ground for a motion to quash. It is also there held that, when the names of witnesses are thus indorsed, the state is not denied the right to introduce on the trial other witnesses than those whose names are so indorsed, but that, on the contrary, express license is given by the statute to do so. In the case of State v. Roy, supra, the indictment did not have upon it the indorsement of the name of a single witness. In the case now before us the indictment had indorsed upon it the names of three witnesses, and in such case the presumption can and must be indulged that the indictment was found upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barrington
...upon the indictment. The trial court sustained a motion to quash on that ground, which was affirmed by this court. In State v. O'Day, 89 Mo. 559, 1 S. W. 759, the ruling announced in State v. Roy, was approved, but it was clearly pointed out that under the provisions of the statute the stat......
- State v. January, 38973.
- State v. January
-
State v. Conway
...State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23; State v. Myers, 198 Mo. 225; 1 Bishop's New Crim. Prac., sec. 869a; Ballard v. State, 19 Neb. 609; State v. O'Day, 89 Mo. 559. (3) was asked if he knew appellant had been in the penitentiary. He answered he did not know, but he heard that he was, to which ap......