State v. Dunn
| Decision Date | 30 April 1881 |
| Citation | 73 Mo. 586 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. DUNN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Butler Circuit Court.--HON. R. P. OWEN, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
This was an indictment for an affray found on the 15th day of May, 1877. It charged that defendant, “on the 14th day of May, 1877, at the county of Butler and State of Missouri, did, in a public place in the town of Poplar Bluff, in said county, unlawfully assault one Stephen M. Chapman, and beat, strike, kick and bruise him, the said Chapman, which assault, so as aforesaid, was in an angry and quarrelsome manner, to the disturbance of others, the citizens of said town and county, against the peace and dignity of the State.” The defendant relied upon a conviction for the same offense before the chairman of the board of trustees of the town of Poplar Bluff, as a defense to the indictment, and offered in evidence the following transcript of proceedings before that officer: Under the instructions of the court the jury found defendant guilty. In due time motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed. These motions are not set out in full in the bill of exceptions, but are stated to have been filed, and are called for thus: “See page 7 of this transcript,” where they appear set out at full length.
S. G. Kitchen for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
The indictment is framed under section 6, page 491, 1 Wagner's Statutes, and states all that is necessary under that section to constitute an affray, and is, consequently, sufficient; and that offense was indictable when the indictment was found--and the circuit court had jurisdiction.
The instructions given in behalf of the State would seem to have presented the law with unexceptionable fairness to the jury, and as the evidence has not been preserved, it will be presumed that the evidence adduced at the trial warranted their giving. But those instructions are not the subject for appropriate discussion here, for a reason we will now state: The same rule is applicable in criminal as in civil cases, as to the necessity of the incorporation of the motion for a new trial in the bill of exceptions. As the motion mentioned has not been thus incorporated, we cannot notice any of the alleged errors...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson
...by us. The rule, in this regard, is the same in criminal as in civil causes.” To the same effect, also, are the following case: The State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; The State v. Robinson, 79 Mo. 66; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; Matlock v. Williams, 59 Mo. 105. The rule in this court, as repeatedly......
-
Johnson v. State
...when the motion for new trial is not incorporated in full in the bill of exceptions, though the instructions are contained therein. State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; Same v. McCray, 74 Mo. 303. So it was said in State v. Preston, 77 Mo. 294: `It is also insisted that the court erred in giving inst......
-
State v. Shaeffer
... ... Besides the Supreme Court will not review errors not called ... to the attention of the trial court in the motion for a new ... trial. State v. Jansen, 80 Mo. 97; Polk v ... State, 4 Mo. 544; Pogue v. State, 13 Mo. 444; ... State v. Marshal, 36 Mo. 400; State v ... Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; State v. McCrary, 74 Mo. 303; ... State v. Robinson, 79 Mo. 66; State v ... Mann, 83 Mo. 589. (9) The evidence in the case warranted ... the verdict. (10) There is no foundation for the assertion ... that the record shows the prosecution to be intended to ... further the private ... ...
-
State v. Burk
...of exceptions, it will not be considered. State v. Marshall, 38 Mo. 400; State v. Connell, 49 Mo. 232; State v. Sweeney, 68 Mo. 96; State v. Dunn, 73 Mo. 586; State v. McCray, 74 Mo. 303. (4) The judgment in case should be affirmed. Ray, J. Henry, C. J., not sitting, and Sherwood, J., expre......