State v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 18 May 1909
• Citation: 220 Mo. 1,119 S.W. 399
• Parties: STATE v. HAYES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

119 S.W. 399

220 Mo. 1

STATE v. HAYES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 18, 1909.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1024) — APPEAL BY STATE—OBJECTION TO INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.

There is no right of appeal by the state from the action of the trial court in sustaining accused's objection to the introduction of evidence after the jury was impaneled and sworn.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1024) — APPEAL — DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED.

On an appeal by the state, where no right of appeal existed, the Supreme Court, not having jurisdiction, could not entertain a motion for accused's discharge.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ozark County; A. W. Lincoln, Special Judge.

John C. Hayes being prosecuted for embezzlement, his objection to the introduction of evidence, after the jury was impaneled and sworn, was sustained, and the state appeals. Dismissed.

This cause is presented to this court upon appeal by the state. In 1908 the prosecuting attorney of Stone county filed an information charging the defendant with the offense of embezzlement. The regular judge of the Stone county circuit court was disqualified, and on February 18, 1908, the cause was set down for the March, 1908, term of said court before Hon. A. W. Lincoln, judge of the Greene county criminal court, who was, by the judge of the Stone county circuit court, requested to appear and try said cause. At the March adjourned term of the Stone county circuit court, being May 18, 1908, Judge Lincoln sustained respondent's application for a change of venue, and sent the case to Ozark county for trial. In October, 1908, in the Ozark county circuit court, a continuance was ordered by agreement until December 14, 1908. On this last-mentioned date the defendant was arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty. The jury was impaneled and sworn. The defendant then filed a motion to quash the information, which was by the court taken up and overruled, whereupon the trial proceeded; and, at the very inception of the introduction of testimony on the part of the state, the defendant objected to the introduction of any testimony in said cause, which objection the court sustained. The state refusing further to proceed, the defendant, by his counsel, requested the court to give a peremptory instruction directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, which request was denied, and the jury discharged. Defendant then filed a motion for his discharge, which the court overruled. The record then discloses that the state through its prosecuting officer, William E. Renfro, filed an affidavit for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which appeal was granted to this court, and the clerk was ordered to make out a full, true, and complete transcript in said cause, and forward the same to the clerk of the Supreme Court without any unnecessary delay. This is a...