State v. Montgomery
| Citation | 28 Mo. 594 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. MONTGOMERY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 July 1859 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A general verdict against a defendant in a criminal case will authorize a judgment thereon if there is a single good count in the indictment.
2. It is competent in a criminal case, as affecting the credibility of a witness, to inquire into the state of his feelings towards the party against whom he is called upon to testify; this inquiry cannot, however, be made concerning the witness' feeling towards the husband of such party.
Appeal from Cedar Circuit Court.
Johnson & Ballou, for appellant.
E. B. Ewing (attorney-general), for the State.RICHARDSON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted for disturbing an assembly met for religious worship, under the thirtieth section of the eighth article concerning crimes and punishments. (1 R. C. 1855, p. 630.)
The defendant's counsel concedes that the first count in the indictment is good, but insists that the judgment should be arrested because the verdict is general, and the second count is bad. But there is nothing in that objection, for the practice seems to be settled that a verdict in a criminal case will authorize a judgment upon it, if there is a single good count in the indictment to support it. (State v. Jennings, 18 Mo. 435; State v. Bean, 21 Mo. 269; 1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 639.)
One of the witnesses called by the State was allowed on his cross-examination to testify concerning the state of his feelings towards the defendant, but the court sustained the objection to the defendant's offer to prove that the witness was unfriendly to her husband. It is always competent, as affecting the credibility of a witness, to inquire into the state of his mind in respect to the party against whom he is called, but we have seen no authority that permits the inquiry to be made concerning the witness' feelings in regard to other persons, no matter in what relation, however else they may stand to the party. If the rule includes a husband or wife, it would embrace father, mother, brother or sister, and other relatives remotely of kin, and there would be no proper or defensible limit if the inquiry was allowed so wide a range.
In order to sustain an indictment like the one in this case, it is of course necessary to prove that an assembly was disquieted or disturbed, and the fact is one to be proved by the jury; but it is certainly not necessary to prove that every person in the assembly was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Stegner
... ... is nothing in the record tending to show the witness's ... bias or prejudice, we will not interfere with the discretion ... of the court in excluding the recital and, thus, to an ... extent, limiting his cross-examination. [State v ... May, 172 Mo. 630, 72 S.W. 918; State v ... Montgomery, 28 Mo. 594.] ... [276 ... Mo. 440] III. Appellant complains of the refusal of the trial ... court to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence ... There was direct evidence of the appellant's guilt; where ... this exists, an instruction on the weight to be given ... ...
-
State v. Rider
... ... revolver, was properly excluded. For the purpose of ... impeaching the testimony of a witness, the inquiry need not ... be confined to his veracity alone, but the examination may be ... extended to his general moral character. State v ... Shields, 13 Mo. 236; State v. Montgomery, 28 ... Mo. 594; Day v. State, 28 Mo. 422; State v ... Hamilton, 55 Mo. 520; State v. Breeden, 48 Mo ... 507; State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 391; State v ... Miller, 71 Mo. 590; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 133 ... (4) When a defendant, in a criminal case, testifies in his ... own behalf, the state ... ...
-
State v. Stegner
...court in excluding the recital and, thus, to an extent, limiting his cross-examination. State v. May, 172 Mo. 646, 72 S. W. 918; State v. Montgomery, 28 Mo. 594. III. Instructions. — Appellant complains of the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence. The......
-
The State v. Miles
... ... While there is almost no ... limit to which the State might not have gone in its questions ... as to bias in favor of the defendant himself, it is insisted ... that such inquiry can not be directed toward witness's ... feelings for members of defendant's family. State v ... Montgomery, 28 Mo. 594; State v. Glynn, 51 Vt ... 577. (3) Instruction 2, being the instruction by which the ... court undertook to define murder of the second degree, was ... erroneous, in that it should have contained the word ... "feloniously" and have required the jury to find ... the elements ... ...