State v. Naughton

Citation120 S.W. 53,221 Mo. 398
PartiesSTATE v. NAUGHTON.
Decision Date08 June 1909
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

Daniel E. Naughton was convicted as accessory after the fact to the commission of a felony, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to sustain indictment.

This cause is now pending in this court upon appeal on the part of the defendant, Daniel E. Naughton, from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, convicting him as accessory after the fact to the commission of a felony.

In the year 1907, Ferd Warner and Fred W. Priesmeyer were members of the House of Delegates in the city of St. Louis. The defendant was deputy clerk of said legislative body. On the 18th day of October of that year there was pending before the House of Delegates House Bill No. 212, entitled "An ordinance authorizing Henry Ascher to erect a one-story brick building to be used for an automobile garage on the rear of the premises known as 5011, 5013 and 5015 Delmar avenue, in city block No. 4857." The indictment against this defendant is quite lengthy, but suffice it to say that the first portion thereof in proper terms charges that the said Warner and Priesmeyer received of Henry Ascher the sum of $500 to vote for and put through such measure in the House of Delegates. After thus charging the crime of bribery against Warner and Priesmeyer, as to the defendant, the indictment thus specifies the charge against him: "And that afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of October, A. D. 1907, at the said city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, one Daniel E. Naughton, then and there well knowing the said Ferd Warner and the said Fred W. Priesmeyer to have committed the aforesaid bribery and felony in the manner and form aforesaid, and he, the said Daniel E. Naughton, then and there not standing in the relation of husband and wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity, to the said Ferd Warner nor to the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer, did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously have and receive of the said Ferd Warner and the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer the said sum of $500, lawful money of the United States, as aforesaid, and being the same $500 so given and paid over to the said Ferd Warner and the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer by the said Henry Ascher as a bribe as aforesaid, and did then and there unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously carry away and dispose of and attempt to conceal and make away with the said $500 in order that the same might not be found, nor be discovered nor to be used as evidence against the said Ferd Warner and the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer, and with the felonious intent then and there and thereby to aid and assist the said Ferd Warner and the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer and in order that they said Ferd Warner and the said Frederick W. Priesmeyer, might escape and avoid trial, conviction, and punishment for the said offense of bribery and felony committed by them as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state." This indictment was returned at the October term, 1907, of the St. Louis circuit court; that is to say, February 1, 1908.

To this the defendant filed his duly verified plea in abatement thereto, in the language following: "And the said Daniel E. Naughton, in his own proper person, comes into court here, and having heard the said indictment read, says: That the state ought not further to prosecute the said indictment against him, the said Daniel E. Naughton, because he says on or about the 4th day of December, 1907, he was subpœnaed as a witness to appear and did appear as a witness before the grand jurors of the state of Missouri summoned and impaneled for the December term, 1907, of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Mo. That said grand jurors were then and there investigating the charge against him, Daniel E. Naughton, of accessory after the fact to the alleged bribery of Ferd Warner and Fred W. Priesmeyer, members of the House of Delegates of the city of St. Louis, Mo. That he was sworn as a witness and was compelled to testify and did testify in the matter of the said investigation, without being informed that his own conduct was under investigation. That afterwards, to wit, on the 6th day of December, A. D. 1907, he was brought before the Honorable Daniel D. Fisher, judge of this court, and arraigned for a criminal contempt for his failure to answer in substance the following questions: Q. Did you take $500 in currency to the place of business of Sam Weisman, of this city, and give him, the said Sam Weisman, the said $500 in currency, October 9, 1907, in the city of St. Louis, Mo.? Q. Who gave to you the said $500 in currency which you took to the said place of business of Sam Weisman of this city on the 19th day of October, 1907? Q. Did you get $500 from any member of the House of Delegates, or any officer of the House of Delegates, or any other person on the night of the 18th of October, 1907, or at any time the next day? Q. Did you, directly or indirectly, receive $500 from Fred W. Priesmeyer or Ferd Warner in the city of St. Louis, Mo., on the 18th day of October, 1907, or at any time thereafter? Q. Did you directly or indirectly receive from Fred W. Priesmeyer or Ferd Warner an envelope or any other package or parcel in the city of St. Louis, on the 18th day of October, 1907, or at any time thereafter? Q. Did you receive from any person or persons in the city of St. Louis, Mo., the sum of $500, October 18, 1907, or at any time thereafter? Q. Do you know whether or not any person or persons delivered to Sam Weisman the sum of $500 in the city of St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 1907, or at any time thereafter? To each and every one of the said questions defendant refused to answer. Q. Did you receive any money on the night of the 18th day of October, 1907, from any member of the House of Delegates, or any other person, knowing at the time, or having reason to believe at the time, that the money, to wit, the $500, was in any sense connected with a bribery transaction or any other criminal act? A. I did not, sir. That he was discharged by this honorable court. That afterwards, on or about the 9th and 10th days of December, 1907, he was again subpœnaed as a witness before said grand jurors, and did appear before them, and was again examined concerning the said charge against him of accessory after the fact to bribery, without being informed that his case was under investigation. That he was again on the 11th, 12th, and 14th days of December, A. D. 1907, supœnaed as a witness before said grand jurors, and did appear before them, and was again examined as a witness, and did again testify in said case of the state of Missouri v. Daniel E. Naughton, charged with said offense of being accessory after the fact to bribery, without being informed that his own case was under investigation. That thereafter, to wit, on February 1, 1908, said grand jurors, before whom defendant appeared and testified, as aforesaid, found, returned, and filed the indictment herein against him. And this he, the said Daniel E. Naughton, is ready to verify. Wherefore he prays judgment, and that by the court herein he may be dismissed and discharged from the said premises in said indictment above specified."

The state pleaded to this plea in abatement by way of general denial. On the hearing of this plea the defendant introduced all of the testimony of Naughton before the grand jury on December 3, or December 11, 1907. It was admitted: That defendant had been duly subpœnaed to appear before the grand jury; that he attended the anteroom of the grand juryroom 10 times in obedience to subpœnas, and testified two different days; and that no warning was given defendant that he was under investigation.

While we dislike very much to burden this opinion with a detailed statement of the defendant's testimony before the grand jury, yet, to fully appreciate the proposition confronting us concerning the action of the court upon the plea in abatement, it is absolutely essential that the examination of the defendant before the grand jury be reproduced, to the end that we may be able to intelligently discuss the highly important proposition as to whether or not ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Nagle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 15, 1930
    ...v. State, 25 Miss. 512; 1 R.C.L. 573, sec. 117; Sec. 3681, R.S. 1919; State v. Myers, 278 S.W. 715; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 520; State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398; State v. Thornton 245 Mo. 436; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 35 L. Ed. 1110; Underhill Crim. Ev., sec. 140; Balbo v. Peop......
  • State ex rel. Leake v. Harris
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1934
    ...rights. Sec. 11, Article II, Const. of Mo.; Sec. 23, Article II, Const. of Mo.; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 S.W. 1038; State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398, 120 S.W. 53; State v. Lehman, 175 Mo. 619, 75 S.W. 139; State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96; State ex rel. v. Kearns, 304 Mo. 6......
  • Kansas City v. Markham, 33030.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 12, 1936
    ... ... State ex rel. Leake v. Harris, 334 Mo. 713, 67 S.W. (2d) 981; Mo. Const., Secs. 11, 23, Art. II; U.S. Const., Fourteenth Amend.; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 5, 24 S.W. 1038; State v. Naughton, 221 Mo. 398, 120 S.W. 53; State v. Lehman, 175 Mo. 619, 75 S.W. 139; State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96; State ex rel. v. Kearns, 304 Mo ... ...
  • State v. Bartley
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1935
    ...on the 2nd day of October, 1933, should have been sustained. State v. Pearson, 270 S.W. 347; Secs. 3692, 3693, R.S. 1929; State v. Naughton, 120 S.W. 53, 221 Mo. 398; 40 Cyc. 2213; State v. Willis, 24 S.W. 1008, 119 Mo. 485; State v. Evans, 39 S.W. 462, 138 Mo. 116; State v. Burlingame, 48 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT