State v. Pearson
| Citation | 231 S.W. 595,288 Mo. 103 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ISAAC PEARSON, Plaintiff in Error |
| Decision Date | 26 May 1921 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ of Error to Pemiscot Circuit Court. -- Hon. Sterling H McCarty, Judge.
Reversed and defendant discharged.
C. G Shepard for plaintiff.
(1) It was not necessary for defendant to reside in precinct No. 1 of Virginia Township, Pemiscot County, Missouri, in order to be a legal voter in said precinct, but it was sufficient if he resided within Virginia Township and said information failing to state that he did not reside within Virginia Township, fails to state an offense against the laws of the State of Missouri, and the plea of guilty entered to said charge is a nullity and the defendant should be discharged. Sec. 2, Art. 8, Mo. Const.; Sec. 4748, R. S. 1919. (2) It was not necessary for defendant to have resided within Pemiscot County, Missouri, for a period of one year before the date of said election, but it was sufficient if he had resided within said county sixty days before said election, if he had resided within the State of Missouri one whole year next before said election. There being no charge in the information that defendant had not resided within the State of Missouri, one year before the date of said election, and no charge that he had not resided within Pemiscot County sixty days next before said election, said information is fatally defective and states no crime against the election laws of the State of Missouri. (3) Informations charging a party with illegal voting must state the facts making the voting illegal, and stating the conclusion of the pleader is not sufficient. State v. Judd, 221 Mo. 554; State v. Miller, 132 Mo. 297; State v Hilderle, 203 Mo. 574. (4) A form for informations of this nature could be found in the case of State v. Whalen, 234 Mo. 539, but the scantily worded information in this case does not in the least degree meet the requirements of the Whalen case.
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and Albert Miller, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
Plaintiff in error in his brief presents the sole question of the insufficiency of the information. We concede that the information is insufficient, and fails to charge any offense under either Sec. 3209 or 3224, R. S. 1919. Sec. 2, Art. 8, Mo. Const.; Sec. 4748, R. S. 1919, and cases cited in brief of plaintiff in error.
WHITE, C. Railey and Mozley, CC., concur.
On information filed November 14, 1920, in the Circuit Court of Pemiscot County, defendant was charged with illegal voting on the second day of November, 1920. On the seventeenth of November, at the same term of court, the defendant appeared in person in court, waived arraignment, plead guilty to the information as charged, and his punishment was fixed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. Afterwards a writ of error was sued out in this court by the defendant.
I. By his plea of guilty the defendant confessed only the truth of the facts stated in the information. It did not involve a plea of guilty of violation of the statute against illegal voting unless the information correctly charged the commission of that crime. He could take advantage of any defect in the information by appeal or by writ of error. [State v. Kelley, 206 Mo. 685, 105 S.W. 606; State v. Reppley, 278 Mo. 333, 213 S.W. 477.]
II. The information charged that on the --- day of November, 1920 while an election was being held in Virginia Township, Pemiscot County, State of Missouri (setting out the different offices, national, state and county for which the election was being held), the defendant appeared at polling precinct No. 1 of Virginia Township of Pemiscot County, falsely applied for and received a ballot, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial