State v. Nunley

• Decision Date: 13 December 1904
• Citation: 83 S.W. 1074,185 Mo. 102
• Parties: THE STATE v. NUNLEY, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 S.W. 1074

185 Mo. 102

THE STATE v. NUNLEY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

December 13, 1904

Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. L. Fort, Judge.

Affirmed in part.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

(1) This being an offense under the statute, a reasonable compliance with the language of the statute is all that is necessary so long as the defendant is informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. State v West, 157 Mo. 309; State v. Hendrickson, 165 Mo. 226; State v. Williams, 136 Mo. 293; State v. Hall, 164 Mo. 528. (2) The fourth count follows the language of the indictment in the case of State v Williams, 136 Mo. 293, and has reference to the same state of affairs. The defendant in that count is charged with willfully, corruptly and feloniously attempting to bribe one Bob Rice. (3) It has been held not to be necessary to allege the kind and value or the amount of money offered or given in a case of this kind. State v. Leibert, 29 Tex.App 159; United States v. Kessel, 62 F. 57; State v. Brebusch, 32 Mo. 207. (4) It was perfectly competent for the prosecuting attorney in the second count to charge the defendant with bribing certain members of the jury who were unknown to the said prosecuting attorney, as it was also competent for the prosecuting attorney to allege in said count that the exact amount of money or property was unknown to him. Even though it be considered essential that the amount of the property should be given and that the particular names of the jurors should be set out in the information, yet the necessity for such ruling could be based only upon the ground that the defendant has a right to be informed of the full charge preferred against him before he announces ready for trial. In this case, the defendant announced ready for trial without objecting to the form of the information and without moving to quash the same. It is, moreover, apparent that whatever defect there might be upon the face of the information, in this respect, it was waived by the defendant going into trial. Nor does it appear that the defendant raised the point either in his motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, as these motions are not set out in the record and no exceptions are shown to have been taken to the action of the court thereupon. The objection upon this point, in this court, comes too late. The defendant should have demurred to the information and having failed to do so is presumed to have waived all rights which he might have been entitled to should a motion to quash have been filed. State v. Brown, 85 Mo.App. 462; State v. Copeland, 167 Mo. 298; State v. Fleming, 90 Mo.App. 241; State v. Armstrong, 157 Mo. 257; State v. Williams, 152 Mo. 115.

FOX, J. Gantt, P. J., concurs in this judgment; Burgess, J., absent.

OPINION

FOX, J.

On the 11th day of August, 1903, there was filed in the circuit court of Butler county an information on behalf of the prosecuting attorney, charging the defendant with a violation of section 2043, Revised Statutes 1899. The information contains four counts. The defendant was convicted upon the second and fourth counts, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary on each count. No motion to quash was filed, and no bill of exceptions has been presented to this court for review. We, therefore, have the case here on the record proper.

The second and fourth counts of the information upon which the defendant was convicted are as follows:

"And for another and further count to this information again comes R. H. Stanley, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Butler and State of Missouri, and upon his oath of office, information and belief informs the court that on or about the 14th day of June, 1901, at the county of Butler and State of Missouri, a certain criminal cause was then and there pending in the circuit court of said Butler county, between the State of Missouri, plaintiff, and Alexander Sanders as defendant, in which said cause the said Alexander Sanders was charged by and upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of said Butler county, with murder of the first degree, for the killing of one John E. Dacus, the said circuit court of Butler county then and there having jurisdiction to hear and try said cause; that on or about the said 14th day of June, 1901, a certain jury of said county were then and there duly summoned, challenged and impaneled, sworn and qualified to try the issues joined in said cause then and there pending in said court; that R. F. Crady, M. L. Harmon, George Martin, J. B. Lacy, Monroe Shaw, John W. Sutton, J. H. Chapel, J. W. Whitington, W. E. Keith, Charles Demaree, J. T. Doggett and A. W. Blanford were the jurors so summoned, impaneled, sworn and qualified to try the issues joined in said criminal cause in said court; that one Jefferson Nunley, well knowing the premises aforesaid, and with the corrupt and felonious intent to prevent a just and fair trial of the issues joined in said criminal cause by said jury, did on or about the said 14th day of June, 1901, at the county of Butler and State of Missouri aforesaid unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, corruptly and feloniously corrupt certain members of said jury aforesaid, the names of which said members of said jury so corrupted by the said Jeff Nunley being to the prosecuting attorney unknown, by giving to the said jurors so corrupted as aforesaid a certain sum of money and property the exact amount, kind and character of which said money and property is to the prosecuting attorney unknown, as a gratuity and reward, upon an unlawful, corrupt and felonious agreement and consideration, understanding and undertaking with the said jurors so corrupted as aforesaid, that the said jurors so corrupted as aforesaid would unlawfully, corruptly and feloniously render a verdict in said cause, so pending as aforesaid in said court, acquitting the said Alexander Sanders of the crime of murder of the first degree, or of any other offense, for the killing of John E. Dacus for which he was then upon trial, by and before said jury as aforesaid, upon the issues so joined as aforesaid; contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.

"And for another and further count to this information against comes R. H. Stanley, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Butler and State of Missouri, and upon his oath of office, information and belief informs the court that on or about the 14th day of June, 1901, at the county of Butler and State of Missouri, a certain criminal cause was then and there pending in the circuit court of said Butler county between the State of Missouri as plaintiff and Alexander Sanders as defendant, in which said case the said Alexander Sanders was charged by and upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of said Butler county with murder of the first degree for the killing of one John E. Dacus, the said circuit court of Butler county then and there having jurisdiction to hear and try said cause; that on or about the 14th day of June about seventy-five persons, who were then and there citizens of said Butler county, were duly summoned in said cause and in said court for the purpose of answering such questions as might be asked of them by said court, to ascertain their qualifications to sit as jurors in the trial of said case then and there pending in said court; that Bob Rice was one of said persons so summoned in said case who appeared in said court in obedience to said summons; that after said Rice was so summoned as aforesaid and before he was examined by said court touching his qualifications to sit as a juror in said case, one Jeff Nunley, well knowing the premises aforesaid, and with the corrupt and felonious intent to prevent a fair trial and just trial in said criminal cause, did on or about said 14th day of June, 1901, at the county of Butler and State of Missouri unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, corruptly and feloniously attempt to corrupt said Bob Rice by offering to give to the said Bob Rice a certain sum of money and property, the exact amount, kind and character of which said money and property is to the prosecuting attorney unknown, as a gratuity and reward, with the unlawful, corrupt and felonious intent on the part of the said Jeff Nunley to induce the said Bob Rice to unlawfully, corruptly and feloniously promise and agree to render a verdict in said cause so pending as aforesaid in said court acquitting the said Alexander Sanders of the crime of murder of the first degree or of any other offense for the killing of the said John E. Dacus for which he was then about to be placed upon trial; contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."

OPINION.

Appellant is not represented in this court, there is no brief or...