State v. Mitchell

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SCOTT
• Citation: State v. Mitchell, 25 Mo. 420 (Mo. 1857)
• Decision Date: 31 July 1857
• Parties: THE STATE, Appellant, v. MITCHELL, Respondent.

25 Mo. 420

THE STATE, Appellant,

v.MITCHELL, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1857.

1. An indictment, founded on section 28, of article 8, of the act concerning crimes and punishments (R. C. 1845, p. 404), charging that the defendant did “willfully and contemptuously disturb a congration of people met for religious worship,” etc., is bad.

Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.

William Mitchell was indicted, under section 28, of article 8, of the act of 1845, for disturbing religious worship. The indictment is as follows: “The grand jurors for the State of Missouri, empannelled, charged and sworn to inquire for the county of Laclede aforesaid, upon their oath present that William Mitchell, late of said county, on the 10th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1854, at the county of Laclede aforesaid, did then and there willfully and contemptuously disturb a congration of people met for religious worship by making then and there a noise, and by rude and indecent behavior and profane discourse within their place of worship, and so near to the same as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, against the peace and dignity of the state.”

This indictment was quashed on motion of defendant. The State appealed.

Ewing (attorney-general), for the State.

S. W. Woods, for respondent.

I. The indictment is bad for the reason that the language of the statute is not followed in describing the offense, in this that the word congration is not an English word. Records and proceedings should be in the English language. (R. C. 1855, chap. 47, §34; State v. Jones, 20 Mo. 61.) It is double and uncertain. (State v. Jane, a slave, 3 Mo. 45.)

SCOTT, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no policy in encouraging carelessness or laxity in criminal pleadings. When any departure from the required form is tolerated, it, instead of being regarded as a beacon to warn the pleader of danger, is instantly seized upon as a precedent and urged as a reason why there should be a greater relaxation of the rule requiring the observance of forms. In this way the courts will be led step by step to the subversion of all order in the administration of the Criminal Code. When a man is called upon to defend himself against the charge of having violated the law, it is not unreasonable that he should require the accusation against him to be in sensible language.

The 33d section of the act to establish courts of record and prescribe their powers and duties, enacts...