State v. Edwards

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BATES
• Citation: State v. Edwards, 32 Mo. 548 (Mo. 1862)
• Decision Date: 31 July 1862
• Parties: STATE, Defendant in Error, v. MARTIN EDWARDS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

32 Mo. 548

STATE, Defendant in Error,

v.MARTIN EDWARDS et al., Plaintiffs in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1862.

Error to Christian Circuit Court.

The defendants were indicted at the September term for the year 1860, of the Christian Circuit Court.

The indictment contains two counts, the first charging defendants with disturbing a congregation met for religious worship, and founded on the 30th section of the 8th article of the act concerning crimes and their punishment. (R. C. 1855, vol. 4, p. 630.) The second count is founded on the 15th section of the 7th article of said act, (p. 620,) and charges defendants with disturbing the peace of certain families in said county.

The defendants appeared and demurred to the indictment; but the court declined to pass upon the demurrer. The circuit attorney entered a nolle prosequi as to the second count. A jury was called and a trial had, which resulted in a verdict of guilty.

The court gave the following instructions on behalf of the State:

1. If the jury believe from the facts and circumstances in proof in this case, that the defendants, in the county of Christian, within one year before the finding of this indictment, were guilty of rude behavior, or were guilty of making a noise, or were guilty of using profane language, within a place of worship or near such place of worship, whereby an assembly of people met for religious worship, or any portion thereof were disturbed, they must find the defendants guilty on the first count in the indictment; if the jury further believe that such act or acts were either wilfully, or maliciously, or contemptuously done.

2. Wilfully signifies intentionally, not accidentally.

3. Circumstantial testimony is legal testimony, and wherever such testimony satisfies the minds of the jurors to a reasonable certainty of the guilt of the accused, such testimony is then sufficient to warrant a conviction for the highest crimes known to the laws.

4. Malice in law denotes a wrongful act done intentionally, without just cause or excuse.

5. To constitute the offence in this cause, it is not necessary that the assembly of people should be engaged in religious worship when the disturbance takes place. It is sufficient if the assembly have met for religious worship.

To these instructions defendant objected.

The defendants then filed their motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and the defendants excepted.

Welch, attorney general, for the State.

I. The court did not err in overruling the motion of defendants to set aside the verdict and the motion in arrest of judgment. If different felonies or misdemeanors be stated in several counts of an indictment, no objection can be made to the indictment on that account in point of law. In cases of felony, the judge, in his discretion, may require the State to select one of the felonies, and confine herself to that. But this is only putting the State to her election. The indictment will still be good. But this practice has never been extended to misdemeanors. (1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 95; 2 Campb. 132; 5 Burr. 984; Redman v. State, 1 Blackf. 431; Commonwealth v. Gillespie, 7 Serg. & R 469.)

Neither...