State v. McCue
| Decision Date | 31 October 1866 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. CORNELIUS MCCUE AND PATRICK COIN, Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Ledergerber, Bowman & Colcord, and Smith, for appellants.
The verdict is insufficient in law to support the judgment in this, that whereas different and distinct crimes, differing in their degrees of punishment, are set forth in the different and distinct counts of said indictment, yet the jury do not specify upon which count in said indictment they find the defendants guilty; and their verdict does not state that the defendants are guilty of any crime whatsoever.
Vastine, for respondent.
The defendants were indicted together with Edward Murphy for the crime of robbery and were tried separately from the other defendant. There were three counts in the indictment; one for robbery in the first degree, one for grand larceny, and another for receiving the stolen goods; and the transaction was one and the same. The jury found the defendants “guilty of robbery in the first degree.” A motion in arrest of judgment, for the reasons ( which it is not deemed necessary to notice) that the verdict did not show on which count the defendants were found guilty, and that the first and third counts were insufficient in law, was made and overruled.
The first count contained every essential element of the offence charged, alleged with sufficient certainty. The objection is founded on a mere omission of the proper punctuation, or of the word “and,” between the words ““put” and “money,” to separate the two sentences. We think the language is sufficiently clear and express without any punctuation, though a better style of pleading might have been employed. This objection to the indictment cannot be sustained. It is sufficiently ascertained by the verdict under which count the defendants were found guilty.
Where the defendant is convicted of a lesser degree of the offence charged, under a count which embraces different degrees of the same offence, the statute requires that the verdict shall specify such lesser degree of the offence; but we are not aware of any statute provision that requires the verdict to specify under which count of the indictment the defendant is found guilty where there is no misjoinder of counts, and where there is any good count upon which a judgment may be rendered. In all such cases the jury is at liberty to find a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noland
...18 Mo. 435, it was clear that all the counts charged one and the same offense, a homicide, and a general verdict was sustained. In State v. McCue, 39 Mo. 112, the indictment three counts, one for robbery, one for larceny and the other for receiving stolen goods. The jury found defendant gui......
-
State v. Barbour
......Hays, 78 Mo. 600, 609; State. v. Patterson, 116 Mo. 505, 511, 22 S.W. 696; State. v. Hays (Mo.), 252 S.W. 380 (burglary and larceny,. finding of guilty of burglary, no finding as to larceny, held. an acquittal on charge of larceny); State v. Meyer (Mo. App.), 221 S.W. 775; State v. McCue, 39 Mo. 112; State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S.W. 680,. 683 [5-6]; State v. Jett, 318 Mo. 672, 300 S.W. 752,. 754 [2, 3].]. . . In the. cases cited above on this point, except State v. Hays, 252 S.W. 380, there were two or more counts in the. indictment or information ......
-
Southern Missouri & Arkansas Railroad Co. v. Wyatt
...counts relate to the same transaction. [State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556; State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185; State v. Bean, 21 Mo. 267; State v. McCue, 39 Mo. 112.] If the two tracts described in the petition are and are separate and distinct tracts, then there should have been a separate finding of ......
-
State v. Barbour, 37458.
...of burglary, no finding as to larceny, held an acquittal on charge of larceny); State v. Meyer (Mo. App.), 221 S.W. 775; State v. McCue, 39 Mo. 112; State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S.W. 680, 683 [5-6]; State v. Jett, 318 Mo. 672, 300 S.W. 752, 754 [2, In the cases cited above on this poi......