State v. Lash

• Decision Date: 12 February 1910
• Parties: STATE v. LASH.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

125 S.W. 464

225 Mo. 556

STATE v. LASH.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 12, 1910.

CRIMINAL LAW (§ 865) — COERCION OF JURY.

The action of a judge in a criminal case in sending a jury back at 9:30 Saturday night on their report of disagreement, after 1½ hours' deliberation, with the statement that he had instructions from the absent judge who tried the case to keep them overnight, and the action of the deputy sheriff in charge of the jury in saying to them, "If you do not agree to-night you will be kept until to-morrow morning," are not erroneous as coercing an agreement, though the jury returned in a short time with a verdict of guilty, as there was nothing in the nature of a threat in the action of either one.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Hugh Dabbs, Judge.

E. M. Lash was convicted of assault with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E. F. Cameron, for appellant. E. W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Jno. M. Dawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GANTT, J.

This is an appeal from a conviction in the circuit court of Jasper county of an assault with intent to kill C. C. Keyes on November 11, 1908. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty and upon trial was convicted, and his punishment assessed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. Within due time he filed his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, which were overruled by the court, and he brings his cause here for review. No error is assigned on the record proper. The information is sufficient, and no objections or exceptions are urged against any of the instructions given by the court. The verdict and sentence are in due and regular form. None of the evidence on the merits of the case has been preserved and there is therefore no exception to the admission or rejection of any testimony. The parties filed a stipulation whereby they agreed that the bill of exceptions in this case should contain only the evidence heard on the motions for a new trial. The sole question presented by this appeal is the alleged misconduct of the judge and deputy sheriff after the case had been submitted to the jury for final determination. It appears from that evidence that the cause was submitted to the jury about 7:30 o'clock in the evening on Saturday. The trial was at Carthage and had been heard before Judge Blair, the judge of division No. 2 of that court. It seems that after the jury had retired Judge Blair left for his home in Joplin about 9 o'clock, and after Judge Blair had gone home the deputy sheriff who had charge of the jury reported to Judge Bright, the other judge of that court, that the jury desired to be brought in. The deputy sheriff testified: "My recollection is they reported to me, and I reported to the court, and then they came in and they were asked by the court if they had agreed upon their verdict and they answered that they could not agree, thereupon the judge sent them back to their room for further...