State v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 31 March 1856
• Citation: 23 Mo. 327
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. RAMSEY et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 Mo. 327

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.RAMSEY et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1856.

1. Where an indictment for a felony is pending before the St. Louis Criminal Court, the judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court is not authorized to let to bail the person so indicted; and a recognizance entered into before him for the appearance of the accused before the St. Louis Criminal Court is void.

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.

The recognizance entered into in this cause was declared by the St. Louis Criminal Court to be forfeited, and judgment was rendered thereon against the principal and surety, who bring the case to this court by appeal. At the time the recognizance was taken by the judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court, the Criminal Court was not in session.

Blennerhassett, Wright and Shreve, for appellants.

H. A. Clover, for the State.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The only question in this case involves the authority of the judge of the Circuit Court of St. Louis county to let the prisoner, Ramsey, to bail. He was indicted for a felony by the grand jury of Franklin county, before the Franklin county Circuit Court. He applied for and obtained a change of venue. The Franklin Circuit Court changed the venue to the Criminal Court of St. Louis county, instead of the St. Louis Criminal Court. While the cause was pending before the Criminal Court, the party, Ramsey, was brought before the judge of the St. Louis Circuit Court and let to bail.

It is insisted that, under the statutes of this state, no court or officer in such a case, (indictment for felony,) can let to bail, except the court where the indictment is pending, or the judge of that court, or the County Court of the same county, or some judge or justice of the County Court; and that all other courts and officers are, in such cases, expressly excluded from letting persons indicted for felony to bail. A majority of this court is of the opinion that the judge of the Circuit Court, in this case, had no authority to let to bail or to take a recognizance, and, consequently, the judgment below must be reversed. By sections 19 and 20 of article 4 of the act concerning practice and proceedings in criminal cases, (R. C. 1845, p. 870,) it is provided: “Where the indictment is for a bailable offense, the defendant may be let to bail by the court in which such indictment is pending; or, if such court be not sitting, by the judge thereof, or by any judge or justice of the County Court of the county in which the indictment is pending. When the indictment is for a misdemeanor, the sheriff may himself admit the defendant to bail,” &c. Sec. 21. “No court or officer, other than those specified in the two last sections, shall let to bail any person indicted for any offense.”

As this question can rarely if ever occur in any other county than St. Louis, it is of no great moment to the state at large. The legislature intended to limit and did limit the officers to whom the power to let to bail should be intrusted after indictment found. Persons indicted for felonies could only be bailed by the court in which the indictment was pending, or by the judge of that court, if in...