State v. Nelson
Decision Date | 10 May 1904 |
Parties | STATE v. NELSON. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. An indictment for murder which charged that was not fatally defective on the ground that it alleged that deceased shot himself.
2. The jury in a murder case had been out two days and one night, and, on being called into court without having reached an agreement, the judge stated that it appeared that this was the third trial of the case; that it was to the interest of everybody concerned, including defendant, that the matter should be settled; that the jury ought to make an effort to get together and make a verdict. Held prejudicial error, as having a tendency to cause the surrender of the free judgment of a part of the jurors.
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; Samuel Davis, Special Judge.
Joseph Nelson was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.
See 65 S. W. 749.
W. F. Riggs, L. C. Boyle, Jas. Garner, Ralph Latshaw, and T. E. Burroughs, for appellant. The Attorney General and C. D. Corum, for the State.
The indictment in this case was found by a grand jury of Jackson county, Mo., and was filed in said criminal court on the 5th day of January, 1900. At the January term of said court, 1903, defendant was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree upon such indictment, and punishment assessed at 10 years in the State Penitentiary. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were duly filed, and, being overruled by the court, defendant prosecutes his appeal to this court, and the record is now before us for review.
This prosecution and conviction are predicated upon an indictment in the following form:
This is the second appeal in this cause, and it is conceded by appellant, as well as the state, that the facts developed in the trial of this cause are substantially the same as they appear in the record of the former appeal; hence it can serve no useful purpose to burden this opinion with a restatement of the facts. See State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191, 65 S. W. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 681. The facts, in connection with the action of the court during the progress of the trial, will be given proper attention in the course of the opinion.
This appeal presents two propositions for solution: First, it is urged that the indictment is fatally defective, and charges no offense against the laws of this state; second, that the statements or remarks of the trial court to the jury in respect to their duty in reaching a verdict constituted prejudicial error which warrants the reversal of the judgment.
Upon the former appeal the validity of the indictment was not called in question. However, this court held it was sufficient. Upon this appeal it is earnestly urged that the indictment is fatally defective and fails to charge any offense against the laws of the state. We have carefully considered the views expressed by counsel for appellant upon this proposition, have read and considered the allegations in the indictment with a marked...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fort
...Case may be mentioned State v. Hudspeth, 159 Mo. 178, 60 S. W. 136, State v. Blitz, 171 Mo. 530, 71 S. W. 1027, State v. Nelson, 181 Mo. 340, 80 S. W. 947, 103 Am. St. Rep. 602, State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191, 65 S. W. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 681, and in none of them was it ever intimated or sug......
-
State ex rel. Judah v. Fort
... ... upon appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed, with ... directions that the sentence of the law be executed. In ... addition to Taylor's case may be mentioned State v ... Hudspeth, 159 Mo. 178, 60 S.W. 136; State v ... Blitz, 171 Mo. 530, 71 S.W. 1027; State v ... Nelson, 181 Mo. 340, 80 S.W. 947; State v ... Nelson, 166 Mo. 191, 65 S.W. 749, and in none of them ... was it ever intimated or suggested, so far as the records ... therein disclose, that he had no jurisdiction; nor do we ... think there can be any question as to his jurisdiction to try ... the ... ...
-
The State v. Tucker
... ... T. Allen for appellant; Patterson & Patterson of counsel ... (1) The ... court erred in not instructing the jury on the whole law ... applicable to the case made by the evidence. State v ... Heinze, 66 Mo.App. 135; State v. McGuire, 113 ... Mo. 670; State v. Nelson, 118 Mo. 124; State v ... Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Banks, 73 Mo ... 592; State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147; State v ... Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo ... 568; State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; State v ... Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; State v. Rufus, 149 Mo ... 406 ... ...
-
State v. McCarver
...Case may be mentioned State v. Hudspeth, 159 Mo. 178, 60 S. W. 136; State v. Blitz, 171 Mo. 530, 71 S. W. 1027; State v. Nelson, 181 Mo. 340, 80 S. W. 947, 103 Am. St. Rep. 602; State v. Nelson, 166 Mo. 191, 65 S. W. 749, 89 Am. St. Rep. 681, and in none of them was it ever intimated or sug......