State v. Price

• Decision Date: 07 March 1905
• Citation: 85 S.W. 922,111 Mo.App. 423
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. PRICE, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

85 S.W. 922

111 Mo.App. 423

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. PRICE, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

March 7, 1905

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court.--Hon. Henry C. Pepper, Judge.

REVERSED.

STATEMENT.

Defendant was convicted in the Lawrence Circuit Court on four separate counts on an information charging him with having made as many false and corrupt affidavits. The first count charges in substance, that defendant, on September 30, 1902, appeared before N. Logan, a justice of the peace within and for said Lawrence county, and then and there contriving and intending maliciously and unjustly to cause one William B. Skinner to be arrested and prosecuted on a charge of felony, to-wit "attempting to bribe a juror in the case of the State of Missouri, plaintiff, against said Henry Price, which was then and there a prosecution against said Henry Price in the circuit court of said county for libel by virtue of a warrant to be issued by said justice of the peace at the instance of him, the said Henry Price, did then and there unlawfully willfully, corruptly and falsely before the said N. Logan the said justice of the peace, under oath and affirmation, voluntarily make a certain false affidavit, statement and complaint for the purpose of causing and procuring a warrant to be issued by the said justice for the arrest of said William B. Skinner on the said charge of felony as aforesaid, and that the said Henry Price, in the said affidavit, statement and complaint so made by him, as aforesaid, did willfully, knowingly, corruptly and falsely say, depose and swear among other things, in substance and to the effect following: That is to say, that on the day of July, 1902, the said William B. Skinner, meaning the said William B. Skinner above mentioned, at the county of Lawrence, in the State of Missouri, did then and there willfully and unlawfully attempt to influence or bribe a juror with Ed Goodman, in the case of the State of Missouri against Henry Price, to obtain a verdict against said Henry Price, before the jury had gone to the jury room, against the peace and dignity of the State."

The second count is a copy of the first, except the name of Ed Goodman is used in the place of William B. Skinner. The third count is also a copy of the first, except the name of Ben Nance is used in the place of Skinner, and the fourth count is likewise a copy of the first except the name of I. V. McPherson is used in the place of Skinner; so it appears from the information that defendant by his affidavits separately charged Skinner, Goodman, Nance and McPherson with attempting to bribe a jury impaneled and sworn to try a criminal case wherein he was defendant.

The regular prosecuting attorney of Lawrence county for some reason (not stated in the record) was disqualified to prosecute the case and the court by proper order appointed A. L. Hilpirt, an attorney at law, special prosecuting attorney to prosecute the case. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and a jury of twelve men was impaneled and sworn to try the issues, whereupon I. V. McPherson arose to state the case to the jury. Defendant objected to McPherson stating the case to the jury, for the reason he was not the prosecuting attorney of the county and for the further reason that he was a witness for the State and a prosecuting witness on one of the counts of the information. The court overruled the objection and permitted McPherson to state the case to the jury, and defendant duly saved an exception. After all the evidence was in and the instructions given to the jury, I. V. McPherson again arose to make the opening argument for the State, to which defendant objected for the reason McPherson was one of the prosecuting witness and was not employed or hired by any one to assist in the prosecution. The objection was overruled and McPherson made the opening argument to the jury on the part of the State, and defendant saved an exception. After defendant's counsel had addressed the jury in his behalf, William B. Skinner came forward to make the closing argument on behalf of the State. Defendant objected to Mr. Skinner arguing the cases for the reason he was not the prosecuting attorney, was the prosecuting witness on the first count in the information and had not been hired or employed to assist the prosecuting attorney. The objection was overruled and Mr. Skinner made the closing address to the jury on behalf of the State; defendant duly saved an exception. After the close of Mr. Skinner's address, the jury retired to consider its verdict and on the same day returned into court the following verdict:

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and assess his punishment at $ 500. WALTER MOORE, Foreman."

The court refused to receive the verdict and gave the jury the following additional instruction:

"11 The court further instructs the jury that your verdict may be in one of the following forms:

"We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty as charged in the information. , Foreman." or,

"We, the jury find the defendant guilty on the first count of the information and assess his punishment at dollars.

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty on the second count of the information and assess his punishment at dollars.

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty on the third count of the information and assess his punishment at dollars.

"We the jury, find the defendant guilty on the fourth count of the information and assess his...