State v. Dougherty
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 55 Mo. 69 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. EDWARD DOUGHERTY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court.
J. F. Hardin, for Appellant.
H, Clay Ewing, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent.
The accused was convicted of murder in the second degree, and it is urged, that the court erred in giving instructions; but the instructions are not embodied in the bill of exceptions; moreover, no objections were made to any ruling of the court at the trial, and no exceptions were taken or saved. It is therefore obvious, that there is nothing presented by the record, calling for a revision in this court.
An affidavit accompanied the motion for a new trial, stating that on one occasion, during the progress of the trial, the officer permitted the jury to separate; but it is not alleged or pretended, that they were guilty of any improper practices, or that they were in anywise tampered with.
The rule has long been established here, that the mere fact of a separation of the jury in a criminal case will not invalidate a verdict, or furnish grounds for a new trial, unless it is made to appear, that they have been tampered with, or that they have acted improperly. (State vs. Matrassey, 47 Mo., 295; State vs. Brannon, 45 Mo., 329, and cases referred to.)
The indictment was sufficient, and we see no error in the record.
Judgment affirmed.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Bersch
...to separate is presumed where the record shows separation and no objection. Sec. 5232, R. S. 1909; State v. Brown, 75 Mo. 317; State v. Dougherty, 55 Mo. 69; State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 102; State v. Matrassy, 47 Mo. 295; Bennett's Case, 106 Va. 838; Ossenkop v. State, 86 Nebr. 543. (7) The f......
-
State v. Boone
...morning. Sec. 4071, R.S. 1939; State v. Schaeffer, 172 Mo. 335, 72 S.W. 518; State v. King, 342 Mo. 1067, 119 S.W.2d 322; State v. Dougherty, 55 Mo. 69; State Hatcher, 303 Mo. 13, 259 S.W. 467; State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 611, 29 S.W. 700; State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S.W. 193; State v. McG......
-
Cronberg Brothers v. Johnson
...because of illness or other unavoidable reasons, that fact will not vitiate the verdict. (16 R. C. L. 116, p. 305, 12 Cyc. 724; State v. Daugherty, 55 Mo. 69; v. Curliles, 57 Mo. 102; C. L. & P. Co. v. Howard, 23 N.E. 317; Nichols v. Nichols, 136 Mass. 256.) The general rule is that a new t......
-
The State v. Williams
...that would work evil to defendant. State v. Matrossy, 47 Mo. 295; State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 102; State v. Igo, 21 Mo. 459; State v. Daugherty, 55 Mo. 69. Where the separation occurs during the progress of the before the jury retires, no reversal will be had where it is apparent that no juro......