State v. Sanders
| Decision Date | 19 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 23382.,23382. |
| Citation | 243 S.W. 771 |
| Parties | STATE v. SANDERS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Oregon County; Fred Stewart, Judge.
E. E. Sanders was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Instruction No. 1, given on request of the state, was as follows:
(1) "The court instructs the jury, if you find and believe, from all the facts and circumstances in evidence, that Laconnie Megary was confided to the care and protection of defendant, she being then and there a female under 18 years of age, and that the defendant E. E. Sanders, at and in the county of Oregon and state of Missouri, on or about the first week in March, 1919, unlawfully and feloniously defiled her, the said Laconnie Megary, by carnally knowing her and by having sexual intercourse with her, while she was in his care, protection, custody, or employment, and while she was under the age of 18 years you will find him guilty, as charged in the information herein, of defiling a ward in his care, protection, custody, or employment, while she was under the age of 18 years."
W. N. Evans, of West Plains, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and R. W. Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen.. for the State.
The defendant was charged in an information under section 3260, R. S. 1919, in the circuit court of Oregon county, with defiling a ward by carnally knowing her. Upon a trial he was found guilty as charged, and, the jury failing to agree upon his punishment, the same was, under the provisions of section 4048, R. S. 1919, assessed and declared by the court at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, and judgment rendered accordingly, from which the defendant appeals.
The testimony introduced by the state was simple and direct. The girl was intrusted to the care of the defendant for the purpose of attending school, and while a member of his household he seduced and carnally knew her. He introduced no testimony, but relies upon errors occurring during the trial to reverse the judgment. The principal one of these consists in his waiver of his right to a trial by 12 jurors—the question being whether his consent and agreement with the prosecuting attorney to try the cause with less than that number, was authorized. The record discloses that upon the impaneling of the jury the accused voluntarily agreed and acquiesced in being tried by a jury consisting of only 11 men, and that the case was thus heard and tried and a verdict rendered.
Under our Bill of Rights (section 28, art. 2, Const. Mo.) it is stated that "the right of trial by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGee
...He is supported in this contention by State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 470 (1867), State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266 (1878), and State v. Sanders, Mo.Sup., 243 S.W. 771 (1922). These cases were decided prior to the adoption of our 1945 Constitution. Article I, § 22(a), Const. of Mo., 1945, V.A.M.S., re......
-
State v. Smith
...there can be no waiver of the constitutional right to jury trial by consent to proceed with a trial with less than 12. State v. Sanders (Mo. Sup.) 243 S. W. 771. In Ohio, however, after a review of many cases, it was held that a defendant might be bound by his consent to a trial by less tha......
-
The State v. Sanders
...court had permitted defendant, by consent, to be tried by eleven jurors. The proceedings in the former case will be found reported in 243 S.W. 771 and The first error assigned, is in respect to the giving of Instruction One in behalf of the State. This instruction was assailed on the former......
-
State v. Talken
...sitting as a jury constitute error. Neales v. State, 10 Mo. 498; State v. Moody, 24 Mo. 560; State v. Meyers, 68 Mo. 266; State v. Sanders (Mo. Sup.) 243 S. W. 771. V. The verdict, judgment, and sentence of the court before whom defendant was tried was three months' imprisonment in the coun......