State v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 31 October 1853 |
| Citation | 19 Mo. 254 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. LOPEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An indictment which does not conclude “against the peace and dignity of the state” is bad.
2. A circuit attorney can make no agreement which will discharge a criminal from responsibility for an offense.
3. A circuit attorney, in open court, agreed with a defendant, against whom several indictments were pending, that, if he would plead guilty as to some, he should be discharged from the others. The defendant accordingly pleaded guilty to four of the indictments, and a nol pros., in the ordinary form, was entered on the record as to the remainder Held, the entry of a nol pros. could not be held to have the legal effect of a retraxit, by reason of the agreement.
Indictment for embezzlement. The indictment concluded “against the peace of the statute and of the statute in such case made and provided.” The defendant filed a plea of “not guilty,” and two special pleas in bar. The first special plea in bar is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. A demurrer to this plea was sustained. The second plea was in the form of a plea of former conviction or acquittal, and stated that the defendant had formerly pleaded guilty to an indictment for the same offense charged in this indictment, and had received judgment and pardon. Upon this plea, issue was taken, and it was found against the defendant. He was found guilty and sentenced, and after an unsuccessful motion for a new trial, appealed to this court.
Lackland & Jamison, with Cline & Thompson, for appellant.
H. A. Clover, for the State.
1. The indictment in this case does not conclude “against the peace and dignity of the state,” as is required in the constitution. It concludes thus: “against the peace of the statute and the statute in such case made and provided.” The judgment for this cause must be reversed.
2. We have been asked to express an opinion on the plea in bar of the defendant, in which he sets up an agreement made by him with the circuit attorney, at a term of the Criminal Court where there were ten indictments pending against him for embezzlement, by which agreement it was stipulated that the defendant should plead guilty upon four of the indictments, and that the state should enter a nolle prosequi on the other six, and discharge him from all liability to answer them. Under this agreement, he pleaded guilty on the four,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hingle
...v. Ford, 99 U.S. 594, 25 L.Ed. 399; State v. Keep, 85 Or. 265, 166 P. 936; People v. Groves, 63 Cal.App. 709, 219 P. 1033; State v. Lopez, 19 Mo. 254, 255; People v. More, 71 Cal. 546, 12 P. 631; Lowe v. State, 111 Md. 1, 73 A. 637, 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 878; Runnels v. State, 28 Ark. 121; and th......
-
Chemgas v. Tynan
...755, 6 Am.Rep. 293; Thompson v. Commonwealth, 20 Grat. (Va.) 724; Nichols v. State, 35 Wis. 308, 311; State v. Waters, 1 Mo.App. 7; State v. Lopez, 19 Mo. 254; State v. Pemberton, Mo. 376; State v. Stacy, 103 Mo. 11, 15 S.W. 147; State v. Campbell, 210 Mo. 202, 109 S.W. 706. The same doctri......
-
State v. Adkins
...should be announced dogmatically and without discussion. The Missouri Constitution of 1845 contained a similar provision. In State v. Lopez, 19 Mo. 254, 256, an concluding in the same words as were used in the information in the case at bar, was held to be fatally defective for that reason.......
-
The State v. Campbell
...provision cannot be destroyed by inferences and refuge cannot be taken behind the plea of clerical error or omission. State v. Lopez, 19 Mo. 254; State Clevenger, 25 Mo.App. 653; State v. Pemberton, 30 Mo. 376; State v. Stacy, 103 Mo. 11; State v. Schloss, 93 Mo. 61; State v. Ulrich, 96 Mo.......