State v. Grant

• Decision Date: 06 March 1906
• Citation: 194 Mo. 364,92 S.W. 698
• Parties: STATE v. GRANT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

92 S.W. 698

194 Mo. 364

STATE v. GRANT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 6, 1906.

COURTS—JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURT— CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS — ABANDONMENT.

Failing to call the attention of the trial court, in the motion for a new trial, to the objections urged during the progress of the trial that the law involved was unconstitutional, must be treated as an abandonment of the constitutional question, so as to deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on appeal, although appellant's brief urges such constitutional question.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County; James E. Hazell, Special Judge.

Frank Grant was convicted of violating the local option law, and appeals. Cause transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals.

This cause is here upon appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction in the Dunklin county circuit court upon an indictment charging the defendant with a violation of what is commonly known as the "Local Option Law, "which had been adopted in that county. The sufficiency of the indictment is nowhere challenged, and there is no reason for reproducing it here. On the 31st day of May, 1904, the defendant was put upon his trial before a jury for the commission of the offense charged. The evidence was heard, the court instructed the jury, and the causes, which had been consolidated, were submitted to them, and they returned a verdict of not guilty in cases Nos. 23 and 24, and a verdict of guilty in case No. 2, assessing defendant's punishment at a fine of $300. Judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict, and from this judgment defendant prosecuted his appeal to this court, and the cause is now here for consideration.

W. R. Satterfield, for appellant. The Attorney General and Rush C. Lake, for the State.

FOX, J. (after stating the facts).

At the very inception of the consideration of the record before us, we are confronted with this question, has this court any jurisdiction to finally determine this cause? It is conceded that the offense charged, upon which this trial and conviction was had, is a misdemeanor, and it is manifest that unless the record discloses that some constitutional question is involved, and has been properly preserved for review, this court is without jurisdiction.

The record discloses that the appellant, during the progress of the trial, when the state was proceeding to show by the records the adoption in that county of the local option law, interposed objections to such evidence; but subsequent to the trial and in the brief now before us appellant makes the following declaration: "The defendant now, however, abandons and does not further insist on the court reviewing said objections and...