State v. McKinley
| Decision Date | 17 December 1937 |
| Citation | 111 S.W.2d 115,341 Mo. 1186 |
| Parties | The State v. Aubrey O. McKinley, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Camden Circuit Court; Hon. C. H. Skinker Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
H M. Atwell for appellant.
No prosecuting or circuit attorney in this State shall file any information charging any person with any felony, until such person or persons shall first have been accorded the right of a preliminary examination before some justice of the peace in the county where the offense is alleged to have been committed in accordance with Article V of this chapter. Sec 3503, R. S. 1929; State v. Nichols, 49 S.W.2d 14; State ex rel. McCutchan v. Cooley, 12 S.W.2d 466. All felonies shall be prosecuted by indictment or information. Sec. 3502, R. S. 1929.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Wm. W. Barnes for respondent.
(1) The only matter before the court for review in this case is the record proper. Secs. 3737, 3756, R. S. 1929; State v. Harbeston, 51 S.W.2d 533; State v. Carel, 69 S.W.2d 296; State v. Ross, 69 S.W.2d 293; State v. Thomas, 53 S.W.2d 266; State v. Miller, 18 S.W.2d 492; State v. Kelsay, 18 S.W.2d 491; State v. Ottenmeyer, 51 S.W.2d 39; State v. George, 221 Mo. 519; State v. Mele, 71 S.W.2d 718. (2) The information in this case is sufficient to charge assault with intent to rob. State v. McFadden, 309 Mo. 119. (3) The verdict is sufficient in form. State v. Harris, 87 S.W.2d 1026; State v. Krebs, 336 S.W. 576.
The appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court of Camden County of attempted robbery in violation of Section 4015, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 2821), and his punishment assessed by a jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of seven years. On this appeal his sole assignment of error is that the circuit court had no jurisdiction because no information charging him with the crime was filed after his preliminary examination before a justice of the peace.
An information was filed in the circuit court on March 1, 1935, before any preliminary hearing had been held. Later in that month the appellant filed a motion to quash the information. The court sustained the motion by the following ruling: "Plea in abatement sustained and cause remanded to J. W. Anderson, Justice of the Peace of Osage Township for preliminary hearing." At that hearing, held on April 5, 1935, the appellant was committed to jail and held for trial. When the cause went back to the circuit court no new information was filed and the original information was not refiled. The bill of exceptions shows that at the circuit court trial immediately after the prosecuting attorney had asked the first witness a few preliminary questions counsel for appellant made the following objection:
The objection was overruled, the appellant excepted and the trial proceeded resulting in the conviction and appeal aforesaid. The question is whether the failure of the prosecuting attorney to refile the information after the case came back to the circuit court following the preliminary hearing was such a violation of Section 3503, Revised Statutes 1929 (Mo. Stat. Ann., p. 3124), and Laws 1931, page 203, amending the same, as invalidated the trial proceedings, in view of appellant's objection and exceptions. The part of the statute here involved is as follows:
The purpose of the statute is to safeguard the accused from groundless and vindictive prosecution, and to prevent an abuse of power by the prosecuting attorney. The latter is without authority to file an information charging a felony until after a preliminary examination has been held and a magistrate has found there is probably cause to believe a felony has been committed and that the accused is guilty thereof. [State ex rel. McCutchan v. Cooley, 321 Mo. 786, 792, 12 S.W.2d 466, 468.] But the failure to accord a preliminary examination is waived by the accused if he does not raise the point before he pleads the general issue to the information. [State v. Langford, 293 Mo. 436, 443, 240 S.W. 167, 169; State v. Pippey, 335 Mo. 121, 126 (2), 71 S.W.2d 719, 721.]
In this case the appellant did not waive the failure to accord him a preliminary examination, but in due time filed a motion to quash the information, which the court treated as a plea in abatement and sustained, entering an order remanding the cause to the justice of the peace for a preliminary hearing. These facts appear in the record proper brought up to this court and do not appear in the bill of exceptions. This raises a preliminary question as to whether they are properly before us -- whether we can consider them.
It has been held a motion to quash an information, or a plea in abatement, on the ground that the defendant had not been accorded a preliminary hearing on a felony charge is not a part of the record proper and can only be incorporated in the record by a bill of exceptions. [State v. Pippey, supra, 335 Mo. l. c. 126 (1); 71 S.W.2d 719; State v. Settle, 329 Mo. 782, 786 (1), 46 S.W.2d 882, 884.] Where the record is silent on the point the law will presume that a preliminary examination was duly held; and hence, if the accused complains on that ground he must introduce proof in support of his plea showing the preliminary examination was not held. [State v. Lettrell (Mo. Div. 2), 39 S.W.2d 556, 557 (2).]
But the appellant is not complaining of the trial court's ruling on his motion to quash the information. It was in his favor. He had no ground for exceptions. The sustension of the plea was dispositive of the case at that stage of the proceeding. The cause was remanded back to the justice of the peace, and if no preliminary hearing had been held or the defendant had been discharged it would have ended the case. For that reason we think the entry showing the filing of the motion to quash the information and the court's ruling sustaining the same were parts of the record proper. [4 C. J., sec. 1703, p. 98.]
Have we the right to consider the recital in the record proper showing the preliminary examination was held on April 5 1935, after the cause had been remanded to the justice of the peace for that purpose and long after the information had been filed? State v. Langford, supra, 293 Mo. l. c. 442, 240 S.W. l. c. 168, holds the transcript of the preliminary proceedings in the court of a justice of the peace is not a part of the record proper in a felony prosecution and can only be made so through a bill of exceptions. It would seem a circuit court entry showing the filing of the justice's transcript would be a part of the record proper, just as the entry showing the filing of a motion for new trial is a part of the record proper, since the holding of a preliminary is the first jurisdictional step...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brinkley
... ... 1939; ... State v. Held, 347 Mo. 508, 148 S.W.2d 508; ... State v. Eaton, 166 Mo. 575, 66 S.W. 539; State ... v. Hathhorn, 166 Mo. 229, 65 S.W. 756; State v ... Young, 345 Mo. 407, 133 S.W.2d 404; State v ... Marshall, 326 Mo. 1141, 34 S.W.2d 29; State v ... McKinley, 341 Mo. 1186, 111 S.W.2d 115; 14 Am. Jur., p ... 935, secs. 241, 246; State v. Langford, 293 Mo. 436, ... 240 S.W. 167; State ex rel. Graves v. Primm, 61 Mo ... 166; State v. Lonon, 331 Mo. 591, 56 S.W.2d 378; ... State v. Long, 324 Mo. 205, 22 S.W.2d 809; Moore ... v. State, 124 ... ...
-
State v. Thomas
... ... S.W.2d 256; Ex parte Buckley, 215 Mo. 93; State v ... Flannery, 263 Mo. 579; State v. Frazier, 98 ... S.W.2d 707; State v. Jack, 209 S.W.2d 890; State ... v. Layton, 58 S.W.2d 454; State v. McKee, 212 ... Mo. 138; State v. McKeeber, 101 S.W.2d 22; State ... v. McKinley, 111 S.W.2d 115; State v. Miller, ... 56 S.W.2d 92; State v. Mitchell, 229 Mo. 683; ... State v. Pippey, 71 S.W.2d 719; State v ... Piro, 246 S.W. 928; State v. Shuls, 44 S.W.2d ... 94; State v. Westmoreland, 126 S.W.2d 202; State ... v. Woodward, 130 S.W.2d 474; State v ... ...
-
Crabtree v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
... ... Gould, 131 Mo.App. 585, 110 S.W. 672; ... Simms v. Thompson, 291 Mo. 518, 236 S.W. 876; ... Scott v. Rees, 300 Mo. 133, 253 S.W. 998; State ... ex rel. Potter v. Riley, 219 Mo. 667, 118 S.W. 647. (b) ... The motion is usually heard on affidavits, although oral ... testimony may be ... ...
-
State v. Null
... ... is for the lesser. If Sec. 4845 be invoked the indictment or ... information must validly charge the greater offense. If it ... does not, it must sufficiently charge the lesser offense ... Otherwise there would be no foundation for the prosecution ... State v. McKinley, 341 Mo. 1186, 1191(6), 111 S.W.2d ... 115, 118(15) ... State ... v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23, 96(VIII), 95 S.W. 235 (15), ... 258 (8), may seem to state a contrary doctrine, but it does ... not. There, the indictment charged the defendant with murder: ... (1) by shooting; ... ...