State v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 03 July 1905 |
| Citation | 190 Mo. 353,88 S.W. 719 |
| Parties | STATE v. HUNT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Rev. St. 1899, § 1875, in relation to arson, divides the buildings named therein into different classes. Following the first classification are the words "of another," but the clause referring to houses of public worship, etc., is not followed by words of any such import. Held, that an information charging arson, consisting of the burning of a house of public worship, the property of the General Baptist Church, was sufficient to advise defendant of what particular church he was charged with burning.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — LIMITATIONS — INSTRUCTIONS.
On a prosecution for arson, an instruction that the jury should convict if the crime was committed within three years prior to the date when the amended information was filed was not prejudicially erroneous.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County; Jno. T. Moore, Judge.
J. W. Hunt was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Burkhead & Clarke, for appellant. H. S. Hadley, Atty. Gen., and Frank Blake, for the State.
On the 8th day of September, 1904, the prosecuting attorney of Douglas county, Mo., filed an information in the circuit court of said county charging the defendant with the crime of arson, in setting fire to and burning a church building in said county on or about the 16th day of June, 1904. Thereafter, on September 26, 1904, he filed an amended information, by leave of court, charging the defendant with the same offense. Upon trial had, the defendant was convicted of the crime charged, and his punishment fixed at five years' imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. After unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest, the defendant saved his exceptions and appeals.
On Thursday, the 16th day of June, 1904, a country Baptist church was destroyed by fire in the said county of Douglas, state of Missouri. It appears from the evidence that the defendant owned and had in his possession a horse, the right hind foot of which had some peculiarity, in that it seemed to turn in, or rather to one side, and when the horse walked or ran it made a "winding track." The day before the building was burned there had been a rain, and witnesses for the state testified that the horse's tracks were found leading from the direction of the town of Arnold up to the hitching place near the church, and back again towards Arnold. The defendant lived about 3½ miles northwest from the church, and west of the town of Arnold, which was 2½ miles from the church. A witness for the state, by the name of G. P. Everhart, measured the foot of the defendant's horse on one occasion when it was ridden to his house by a son of defendant, and he testified that the tracks leading up to and away from the church corresponded to and fitted the measurements of the horse's foot. It seems that some time before the building was burned the defendant's son had been arrested for disturbing religious worship at this church, and defendant made various threats about its destruction in the event the prosecution was not stopped. About two weeks before the fire he stated to witnesses who testified in behalf of the state that if this was not done the churchhouse would be burned to ashes, and said: "I will stop the Sunday school and prayer meeting, both." The prosecution was not dismissed, and about two weeks thereafter the church was destroyed by fire. There was other evidence as to the measurements of the horse's foot, and the correspondence thereof with the measurement of the tracks seen near the church, and also as to the threats made by defendant that the church would be burned down if the suit against his son was not dismissed. The evidence also showed that the shoes of the horse had been removed before the burning of the building. The defense was an alibi, and several members of the defendant's family testified that he was at home on the night of the burning of the building, but the testimony was not exactly in accord as to the hour he went to bed.
The information upon which defendant was convicted was in substance as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Henson
...had been drawn upon the section here under consideration, an allegation of ownership would not have been required. In State v. Hunt, 190 Mo. 353, 88 S.W. 719, in which indictment for burning a church building was drawn under the section here under review, the court held that the building di......
- The State v. Hunt
-
State v. Henson
...had been drawn upon the section here under consideration, an allegation of ownership would not have been required. In State v. Hunt, 190 Mo. 353, 88 S. W. 719, in which an indictment for burning a church building was drawn under the section here under review, the court held that the buildin......
-
The State v. Moore
... ... "It shall not be necessary to state any venue [203 Mo ... 627] in the body of any indictment or information; but the ... county or other jurisdiction named in the margin thereof ... shall be taken to be the venue for all the facts stated in ... the body of the same." [State v. Hunt, 190 Mo. 353, 88 ... S.W. 719.] The information was well enough in this respect ... The objection that the prosecuting attorney did not sign the ... information officially is not borne out by the record. Both ... in the body of the information and in his signature to the ... information, it ... ...