State v. Naughton
Citation | 120 S.W. 53,221 Mo. 398 |
Parties | STATE v. NAUGHTON. |
Decision Date | 08 June 1909 |
Court | United 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:
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-
State v. Nagle
...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
...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.
... ... 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
...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 ......