State v. Feeney

• Decision Date: 13 February 1950
• Docket Number: No. 41473,No. 1,41473,1
• Citation: 226 S.W.2d 688
• Parties: STATE v. FEENEY
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 688

226 S.W.2d 688

STATE v. FEENEY.

No. 41473.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Feb. 13, 1950.

J. E. Taylor, Attorney General, Richard H. Voss, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

ASCHEMEYER, Commissioner.

Upon trial in the Circuit Court of Linn County, Missouri, appellant was convicted of the crime of seduction. The jury assessed his punishment at thirty days in the County Jail and a fine of $1,000. Upon the over-ruling of his motion for a new trial, he was granted allocution and was then sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury.

Defendant has appealed to this Court. He has filed no brief. The defendant did not file a bill of exceptions in the trial court. The case is before us upon the record proper contained in the transcript certified by the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

The information is on one count and charges seduction. It follows closely the language of Sec. 4405, R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. Sec. 4405, and charges every fact necessary to constitute the crime of seduction defined in this section. It is substantially identical, in substance and form, to the information approved by this Court in State v. Wallace, 316 Mo. 72, 289 S.W. 871 and to the indictment which was before this Court in State v. O'Keefe, 141 Mo. 271, 42 S.W. 725. The fact that the information omits the day of the month upon which the offense occurred is not a fatal defect. In State v. O'Keefe, supra, the indictment left blank both the day and the month upon which the alleged seduction occurred. A motion to quash was lodged against the indictment on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to charge the crime of seduction, or any other crime. This Court held the indictment to be sufficient. See also State v. Mitchell, 229 Mo. 683, 129 S.W. 917, 138 Am.St.Rep. 425; State v. Bowman, Mo.Sup., 213 S.W. 97; and State v. Bobbitt, Mo.Sup., 270 S.W. 378.

The verdict returned by the jury was as follows: 'We, the jury, find defendant guilty of seduction. And we fix his punishment at $1,000.00 and 30 days in the County Jail.'

The verdict is definite and finds the defendant guilty of seduction. The omission of the verdict to state that the defendant was guilty 'as charged in the information' is of no consequence. It was so held by this Court in State v. Wright, 342 Mo. 58, 112 S.W.2d 571, loc. cit. 575, where we said: 'The sixteenth assignment is that 'the verdict of the jury did not comply with the law pertaining to forms of verdicts.' The verdict was: 'We, the jury, find the defendant William Wright, guilty of murder in the first degree and assess his punishment at Death. Grover Gordon, Foreman.' The verdict is a part of the record proper and it would be our duty to scrutinize it whether the motion for new trial assigned error on that ground or not. It does not recite that the jury found the defendant guilty as...