State v. Page
| Decision Date | 31 March 1855 |
| Citation | 21 Mo. 257 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. Page, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. It is within the discretion of a court, at the close of the evidence in a criminal case, to limit the time to be occupied by the defendant's counsel in addressing the jury; and the supreme court will not interfere unless the discretion has been manifestly abused. (SCOTT, J., dissenting, holding that the time could not be limited in advance.)
Appeal from Washington Circuit Court.
C. Jones, for appellant.
The defendant was indicted for trespassing on a sixteenth section of land in Washington county. After the case was closed on both sides, the court stated that defendant's counsel could only address the jury for thirty minutes, and afterwards stated that the defendant's counsel could only address the jury for fifteen minutes. The defendant's counsel objected, and excepted to this ruling of the court.
The defendant's counsel then addressed the jury, and the court held a watch, and after a short time, announced that the counsel had spoken fifteen minutes, and must stop; the counsel thereupon stopped, and the jury retired.
They afterwards returned with a verdict of guilty, and assessed the defendant's fine at one hundred and sixty dollars. The fine was afterwards reduced by the court to one hundred dollars. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment being made and overruled, the defendant brings the case here by appeal.
The only question of any importance appearing on the record arises upon the refusal of the court to let defendant's counsel speak to the jury longer than fifteen minutes.
Can the Circuit Court limit the time in which a defendant's counsel shall address a jury in a criminal case? By the 13th article, section 9, of the state constitution, it is declared that, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has the right to be heard by himself and his counsel.” Now, in the nature of things, there must be some discretion left with the courts who have criminal jurisdiction in this matter. How long has the accused and his counsel a right to consume the time of the court in their exercise of this right? There must be a limit to it as to duration. The right to be heard exists; it cannot be taken away; nor can the court deny this right, as was done in Ward's case, in Virginia, reported in 3 Leigh. But there is also an inherent right in courts of justice to control and restrain the acts of parties and counsel and officers while engaged in the administration of justice before them. The courts must take care not to abuse these rights on the one side nor on the other. There are cases in which the time necessary to a proper and fair elucidation of the matters involved in the prosecution, must be greater than in others. The courts must not, then, arbitrarily cut down the time in all cases to a certain limit. They must exercise proper discretion in such matters, granting longer or shorter time, as the intricacy, mass of matter, nature of offence, and the means or circumstances on which the defence may rest, may seem to require. This court will not countenance any act of the lower courts which may seem to owe its origin to mere caprice or arbitrary power, or wanton oppression. Nor, on the other hand, will we lend a willing ear to support the complaints of obstinate and wilful or capricious opposition to the orders of the courts, made for advancement and completion of the business before them.
The record before us shows first the allowance of thirty minutes, then the reduction of this to fifteen minutes. We can not say that this is an abuse of the discretionary power of the court. There may be a reason for this. The improper waste of the time of the court, or the urgent pressure of important business on the docket, or the improper opposition and behavior of the counsel--unnecessarily troublesome and vexatious--all may have their operation, or the plain and obvious statement of the facts of the case in evidence may not have required longer time, in the opinion of the court, for the defence, than fifteen minutes. At all events, we will not presume the court below did wrong; and we cannot say that it did not allow the defendant to be heard by his counsel.
This matter of limiting the time to be occupied, in the prosecution of causes before courts of justice, is of very ancient origin. It is found among the Greeks, and was carried thence to Rome. The Greeks had their instruments by which they measured time in the halls of judicature. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
45 593 Herring v. New York 8212 6587
...240 Ky. 279, 42 S.W.2d 328 (1931); State v. Cancienne, 50 La.Ann. 1324, 24 So. 321 (1898); Wingo v. State, 62 Miss. 311 (1884); State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257 (1855); State v. Tighe, 27 Mont. 327, 71 P. 3 (1903); State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 118 P.2d 280 (1941); People v. Marcelin, 23 A.D.2d ......
-
People v. Clark
...supra; United States v. King, 650 F.2d 534 (C.A.4, 1981); Ruedas v. Texas, 586 S.W.2d 520, 523-524 (Tex.Crim.App., 1979); and State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257, 259 (1855).7 Consequently, I agree with the majority that "not every instance of this type of ... error will require reversal." Op. at 826......
-
The State v. Lasson
...to limit the time to be occupied by counsel in addressing the jury. This court will not interfere unless the discretion is abused. State v. Page, 21 Mo. 257; State Linney, 52 Mo. 42; State v. Williams, 69 Mo. 112; State v. Baker, 136 Mo. 83. (7) There is no evidence that warrants an instruc......
-
Hankins v. State
... ... irresistible impulse, for the testimony tended to prove that ... Bolling was afflicted with paranoia or delusional insanity ... which had progressed to the stage of suspicion and ... persecution, in which stage the homicidal tendency or mania ... is most pronounced. Wharton & Stille's, page 828, section ... 1031-b, page 1035. But be this as it may, the point we wish ... to stress here is that the comments of this court in passing ... upon the prayers for instructions in Bolling v ... State show that the court had in mind and did not ... intend to ignore the doctrine that ... ...