State v. Moore

• Decision Date: 14 May 1907
• Citation: 203 Mo. 624,102 S.W. 537
• Parties: STATE v. MOORE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

102 S.W. 537

203 Mo. 624

STATE v. MOORE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 14, 1907.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—BILL OF EXCEPTIONS—FAILURE TO FILE IN TIME—EXCUSE.

Though counsel for one convicted of crime was misled by the prosecuting attorney as to when the time for filing bill of exceptions expired, the Supreme Court cannot grant relief on that ground, but is restricted to examination of the record proper for reversible error; it not being asserted that the prosecuting attorney willfully misstated the time when leave would expire, and it being the duty of counsel to ascertain that fact for himself.

2. INFORMATION—TIME—NECESSITY FOR SPECIFICATION.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2535 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1508], providing no information is invalid for omitting to state when the offense was committed when time is not the essence of the offense, nor for stating the time imperfectly, an information charging robbery on the "____ day of November, 1905," was not bad.

3. SAME — CRIMINAL LAW — VENUE — SUFFICIENCY.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 2527 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1505], providing that it shall be unnecessary to state any venue in the body of an information, but that the county named in the margin shall be taken to be the venue for all the facts stated in the body, an information charging robbery in "Pemiscot county," but not specifying the state, was sufficient; the information laying the venue in the margin.

4. ROBBERY—INFORMATION—SUFFICIENCY.

An information for robbery is not bad for failing to set out the means by which the victim was put in fear.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

Monroe Moore was convicted of assaulting and robbing another, and he appeals. Affirmed.

C. P. Hawkins, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

GANTT, J.

The defendant was arrested and tried upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Pemiscot county charging the defendant with having feloniously assaulted and robbed one Frank Lawson of the sum of $3.50 on the ____ day of November, 1905. The defendant was tried and convicted at the same term at which the information was filed, and sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From that sentence the defendant appeals to this court. There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript owing to the mistake and oversight of the counsel for the defendant as to the expiration of the time for the filing of the bill. Conceding that the counsel for the defendant was misled by the prosecuting attorney, we are powerless to grant him any relief on that ground. It is not asserted that the prosecuting attorney willfully misstated the time when the leave would expire, and it was the duty of the counsel for the defendant to ascertain that fact for himself, especially when it appears that he thought the time expired on the 1st of March, and had...