State v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 03 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 7273,7273 |
| Citation | 274 S.W.2d 514 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clarence Edwards REYNOLDS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
E. C. Hamlin, Springfield, for appellant.
Douglas W. Greene, Pros. Atty., Springfield, for respondent.
Appellant, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, on a charge of careless and reckless driving and his punishment fixed at six months in the county jail and fine of $250. He appealed.
The information charged: 'Douglas W. Greene, Prosecuting Attorney within and for the County of Greene, in the State of Missouri, informs the court that Clarence Edwards Reynolds, on the 24th day of February, A.D., 1953, at the said County of Greene, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully drive and operate a motor vehicle, to-wit: a 1950 Buick Coach on the public highway of Greene County, Missouri, in a careless, reckless and imprudent manner so as to endanger the life, limb and property of others contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Missouri.'
The only question presented on appeal is the sufficiency of the information to charge an offense.
Chapter 304, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., deals with traffic and equipment regulations. This chapter exclusively controls the use of the public highway and the regulation of operators and drivers of motor vehicles. It is composed of sections 304.010 to 304.570, inclusive.
Section 304.010, under which the State bases its information, reads as follows:
'Every person operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state shall drive the same in a careful and prudent manner, and shall exercise the highest degree of care, and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person, * * *.'
Section 304.570 provides: 'Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter for which no specific punishment is provided, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
In State v. Ball, Mo.App., 171 S.W.2d 787, 792, this law is stated:
State v. Schwartzmann Service, 225 Mo.App. 577, 40 S.W.2d 479.
It is the contention of the State that the information charges an offense in substantially the words of the statute.
In State v. Maher, 232 Mo.App. 998, 124 S.W.2d 679, 682, this court stated the law as follows:
'* * * The indictment should state facts which constitute the offense with reasonable certainty so that the defendant may know what he is to answer. He should not have to guess at what he is to defend against or speculate as to the meaning of the allegations in the charge, and this is true in prosecutions for misdemeanors as well as for felonies. The averments should be so clear and distinct and set forth with such precision and fullness that there could be no difficulty in determining what evidence would be admissible under them, and so that the court and jury may know what they are to try, of what they are to acquit or convict the defendant, and so that the record may show, as far as may be, of what the defendant has been put in jeopardy. State v. Krueger, 134 Mo. 262, 35 S.W. 604; State v. Griffith, 311 Mo. 630, 279 S.W. 135; State v. James, 37 Mo.App., 214; State v. McGrath, 228 Mo. 413, 128 S.W. 966. * * *
'As a general rule it is sufficient to frame the indictment in the words of the statute. State v. Newman, 152 Mo.App. 144, 132 S.W. 753; State v. Ferris, 322 Mo. 1, 16 S.W.2d 96; State v. Settle, 329 Mo. 782, 46 S.W.2d 882. This is true only where the statute describes the entire offense by setting out the facts constituting it. * * * As stated by Judge Sherwood in the case of State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601, 19 S.W. 206, 209, 'Following the general language of the statute will answer only in those instances where all the facts which constitute the offense are set forth in the statute itself, which declares or announces or creates the offense.''
Section 545.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., provides:
Rule 24 of the Supreme Court, 42 V.A.M.S., provides:
Rule 24.01. 'The indictment or the information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. * * *'
Rule 24.03. 'When an indictment or information alleges the essential facts constituting the offense charged but fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to prepare his defense, the court may direct or permit the filing of a bill of particulars. * * *'
Rule 24.11. 'No * * * information shall be deemed invalid, * * * when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and person charged or for want of the averment of any matter not necessary to be proved; * * * Provided, that nothing herein shall be so construed as to render valid any indictment or information which does not fully inform the defendant of the offense of which he stands charged.' (Italics ours.)
The State cites State v. Ball, supra, to support its contention that the information is substantially in the words of the statute. We think this case conclusively shows that the State has failed to state a charge. It passes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graham
...Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 177, 181; State v. Stringer, 357 Mo. 978, 211 S.W.2d 925; State v. Crawford, Mo., 251 S.W.2d 76; State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514; refer to note 12.10 State v. Little, Mo.App., 287 S.W. 809.11 City of Plattsburg v. Smarr, Mo.App., 216 S.W. 538; City of Cape Gir......
-
State v. Barlett, 8410
...108 S.W. 1077(3).3 State v. McCloud, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 177, 181; City of Raytown v. Roach, Mo.App., 360 S.W.2d 741, 743; State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514, and cases at 515; State v. Muchnick, Mo.App., 334 S.W.2d 386, 390; State v. Maher, 232 Mo.App. 998, 124 S.W.2d State v. Sarg......
-
State v. Haynes
...not plainly and concisely charged, but was not set forth at all.' Appellant cites Supreme Court Rule 24.01, 42 V.A.M.S.; State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514; Ex parte Keet, 315 Mo. 695, 287 S.W. 463; State v. Stringer, 357 Mo. 978, 211 S.W.2d 925; State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W.......
-
Hoover v. Denton
...under the 'careful and prudent' section (304.010) and the charge of a violation under section 304.015, supra. See, also, State v. Reynolds, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 514, 516, where it was held that an information charging generally that the defendant drove 'in a careless, reckless and imprudent ......