State v. Kramer
| Decision Date | 04 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21949.,21949. |
| Citation | 222 S.W. 822 |
| Parties | STATE v. KRAMER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; J. A. Cooley, Judge.
J. G. Kramer was convicted of violation of the local option law, and he appeals. Case transferred to the Kansas City Court of Appeals.
Lew R. Thomason, of St. Louis (Greensfelder & Levi, of St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant.
Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and Henry B. Hunt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was charged in the circuit court of Adair county in an information which at the trial contained seven counts, with a violation of the local option law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors. Upon a trial before a jury he was convicted,, and his punishment assessed on each count at a fine of $750 and six months' imprisonment in the county jail.
The offenses charged are misdemeanors. The prosecution was instituted under article 3, c. 63, R. S. 1909; the punishment prescribed for violations of the statute (section 7246) being limited to a fine or imprisonment in the county jail or both. The case was transferred to this court from the Kansas City Court of Appeals on the ground that a constitutional question was involved. At the threshold, therefore, we are confronted with the question of jurisdiction. If determined adversely to the ruling of the Kansas City Court of Appeals, a statement of facts, except as bearing upon the matter of jurisdiction, is unnecessary.
The information as originally drawn contained 16 counts. In the count numbered 11 it was charged that the sale of the liquor was made to Marion Shoop, and in count numbered 12 that liquor was stored by appellant for delivery to said Shoop. The latter was at the time the sheriff of Adair county, and his name was indorsed on the information as a witness for the state. On the 8th day of April, 1919, when the case was called for trial, counsel for appellant filed a motion for the appointment of an elisor to summon the jury, alleging as a reason therefor that the sheriff was interested in the result of the prosecution and was a witness for the state. The court thereupon overruled this motion and entered of record the following order:
"It appearing that the jury was selected partly by the county court and partly by the sheriff, and all of said jury being selected before the charges in this case were filed and before the defendant was arrested, the motion will be overruled."
Counsel for the appellant excepted to the ruling of the court, and his exception was entered of record as follows:
"Defendant excepts to the ruling of the court in denying his motion and application for the appointment of an elisor to summon a jury for the trial of this cause for the following reasons: First, because a part Of said jury, eight or nine in number, was selected and summoned by Marion Shoop, the sheriff of Adair county, Mo., said Marion Shoop being a witness for and on behalf of the state of Missouri in said cause, and being incompetent by reason of his interest in the result of said prosecution to select or summon any jurors to sit in the trial of said cause, whereby defendant is deprived of a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Constitution of the state of Missouri."
Counsel for the state in open court then announced that said Shoop would not be a witness for the state, and that counts numbered 11 and 12 of the information, in which it was charged that the unlawful transactions were had with Shoop by the appellant, were dismissed. Seven other counts were dismissed at the same time for reasons not pertinent to the matter here under consideration, leaving seven upon which the appellant was prosecuted. Thereafter counsel for appellant challenged a juror named James H. Shoop on voir dire examination on the ground that "he was related to the sheriff, one of the witnesses for the state, and for the further reason that said juror declined to state whether he would acquit if he had a reasonable doubt of appellant's guilt." Upon inquiry by the court the said James H. Shoop stated that he would acquit if he had a reasonable doubt of appellant's guilt, whereupon the court caused to be entered of record this order:
"In view of the witness' answer and in view of the fact that the state has dismissed the two counts in which Marion Shoop was named as the party to whom the delivery was made, the challenge for cause is overruled."
Thereupon the appellant waived a jury, and upon the state declining so to do the appellant interposed the following objection thereto, which was entered to record:
"Defendant declines to interrogate the jurors summoned to-day by the sheriff for the reason that the defendant insists that the sheriff under the facts in this case is disqualified to summon any jurors, and in so doing deprives the defendant of the right to a fair and impartial trial guaranteed him under the laws and Constitution of the state."
The foregoing italicized exceptions and record entries made at the behest of the appellant exemplify the manner in which constitutional questions were invoked in this case. In the motion for a new trial they were preserved as made in the following manner:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bacon v. Ranson
...IV, of the Constitution of Missouri are not violated by the amendment of 1931. Const. of Mo. Art. II, sec. 15, Art. IV, sec. 1; State v. Kramer, 222 S.W. 822; Stouffer v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; Hicks v. Simonsen, 307 Mo. 307, 270 S.W. 318; State v. Williams, 266 S.W. 484; Ordelheide v. M.B......
-
Bacon v. Ranson
...IV, of the Constitution of Missouri are not violated by the amendment of 1931. Const. of Mo. Art. II, sec. 15, Art. IV, sec. 1; State v. Kramer, 222 S.W. 822; v. Crawford, 248 S.W. 581; Hicks v. Simonsen, 307 Mo. 307, 270 S.W. 318; State v. Williams, 266 S.W. 484; Ordelheide v. M. B. A., 22......
-
State v. Miller
... ... witness Blake, who did not invoke them. But it is ... elementary that he cannot do that. To raise a constitutional ... question his personal rights must be directly affected ... State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589, ... 605, 103 S.W. 1078, 1082; State v. Kramer (Mo. Div ... 2), 222 S.W. 822, 824(5); Ex parte Lockhart, 350 Mo ... 1220, 1233(9), 171 S.W.2d 660, 666 (18) ... Assignments ... 13 and 14 in the motion for new trial charged error in the ... trial court's refusal to give appellant's peremptory ... instructions No's 1 ... ...
-
State, on Inf. of Wallach v. Beckman
...in the subject of the statute and could not be injuriously affected thereby and could not, therefore, attack its provisions. State v. Kramer, 222 S.W. 822. (6) Respondent no constitutional rights denied by statute involved could not raise constitutional questions in respect thereto. Thompso......