State v. Everman, 31011.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 31011.,31011. |
| Parties | STATE v. EVERMAN et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Livingston County; Paul Van Osdol, Judge.
John W. Everman and another were convicted of having obtained property by false pretenses, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Ray Weightman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants in this case were charged by an indictment, returned by the grand jurors of Daviess county, at the February term, 1928, of having obtained, by false pretenses, on or about November 20, 1927, from one Carrie B. Robertson, certain property of the value of $3,000. On an application for a change of venue, by defendants, the cause was transferred to Livingston county, Mo. The prosecuting attorney filed an information in lieu of the indictment in the circuit court of Livingston county. We have examined the indictment and the information, and we find that they charge the same offense. The prosecuting attorney was authorized by virtue of section 3564, Rev. St. 1929, to file an information in lieu of the indictment. State v. Cutter, 318 Mo. 687, 1 S.W.(2d) 96.
The defendants were arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. On trial before a jury they were found guilty as charged in the information. The jury returned a separate verdict as to each defendant and assessed the punishment at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
Appellants filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Allocution and sentence followed the overruling of this motion. From this sentence defendants appealed.
We have carefully examined the information, and find it sufficient both in form and substance. The verdicts are in proper form, and no error appears in the record proper.
Defendants have not filed a bill of exceptions; neither have they favored us with a brief. We are therefore limited to a review of the record proper.
Finding no errors in the record, the judgment is affirmed.
COOLEY and FITZSIMMONS, CC., concur.
The foregoing opinion by WESTHUES, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
...cases are therefore of no controlling or persuasive effect here. The cases of State v. Barr, 326 Mo. 1095, 34 S.W.2d 477, and State v. Everman, Mo., 44 S.W.2d 36, might be considered as indicating that even prior to the enactment of these rules, an information might be substituted for an in......