State v. Gray
| Decision Date | 31 July 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 492 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. GRAY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An indictment of several under the 38th section of the 2d article of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. C. 1845,) which charges that the assault was with a “knife which they in their right hand then and there held,” is bad.
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court.
Gray was indicted with others, under the statute, for a felonious assault, and upon a separate trial was convicted. No motion to quash the indictment or arrest the judgment was made in the court below. At the trial, the court excluded evidence to show that the party assaulted was trespassing upon land of which defendant was in possession at the time of the assault.
F. P. Wright, for appellant, in his brief, relied upon the exclusion of the evidence and error in the instructions for a reversal of the judgment.
Gardenhire, (attorney-general,) for the State.
The judgment rendered in this case must be arrested for the defects contained in the indictment. The defendants are charged under the 38th section of the act concerning crimes, 2d article, with having jointly made an assault; and several being indicted, it is charged that they, with a knife, which they then and there with their right hand held, made an assault, &c. This is an impossibility. It is on the face of it false, and must be bad. The proper mode, in such cases, is to charge one of the defendants with having made the assault, and the others being present, aiding and abetting, will be as much implicated as though they had actually made the assault. Although the offence might have been laid under the section, without the allegation deemed objectionable, yet as the indictment contains the averment, and that averment shows that the thing charged to have been done was impossible, the indictment cannot be sustained. Judgment reversed;
Judge Ryland concurring; Judge Leonard not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Furgerson
...impossibility. 2 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law (1 Ed.), p. 440, and note; State v. Draper, 65 Mo. 338. State v. Jones, 20 Mo. 60; State v. Gray, 21 Mo. 492; State v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 100; Sanchez People, 22 N.Y. 147; 2 Bishops's New Crim. Prac. (4 Ed.), sec. 522, et seq. (2) The second count of ......
-
State v. Turlington
...that the two defendants made an assault on Cranmer, and with a certain pistol, which they, in their right hand had and held, etc. State v. Gray, 21 Mo. 492. John Wood, Attorney General, and John R. Walker and G. W. Johnston for the State. (1) The court did not err in overruling defendant's ......
-
The State v. Meadows
... ... allege it in the indictment; and if it is necessary to allege ... and prove it, it follows that the name of the person ... assaulted must be given. (2) A motion in arrest is the proper ... practice in felony cases, and not a motion to quash ... State v. Rector, 11 Mo. 29; State v. Gray, ... 21 Mo. 492; State v. Lichliter, 95 Mo. 402. (3) When ... an indictment is materially defective neither a motion to ... quash nor a motion in arrest of judgment is necessary, but ... the question may be raised for the first time in this court ... State v. Myers, 99 Mo. 107; State v ... ...
-
State v. Taylor
...bullet," and that with said pistol so loaded the defendant shot Tobe Carlyle and inflicted two mortal wounds, from which he died. ""State v. Gray, 21 Mo. 492; ""State Edwards, 70 Mo. 480; ""State v. Flint, 62 Mo. 393. (2) The evidence of the coroner's stenographer was inadmissible. (3) As e......