State v. Simms
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | NORTON |
| Citation | 71 Mo. 538 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. SIMMS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1880 |
71 Mo. 538
THE STATE
v.
SIMMS, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
April Term, 1880.
Appeal from Howell Circuit Court.--HON. J. R. WOODSIDE, Judge.
REVERSED.
Livingston & Mitchell for appellant.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
NORTON, J.
This case has heretofore been before this court, and is reported in 68 Mo. 305, upon an examination of which it will be seen that the judgment was reversed solely because of the error committed by the trial court in giving an instruction to the effect that insanity, when set up as a defense, could only be proven by direct evidence. Upon a re-trial of the cause this error was corrected, and defendant was again convicted of murder in the second
[71 Mo. 539]
degree, and has again appealed, assigning numerous errors, which we will notice in the order presented by his counsel in their brief.
1. CRIMINAL LAW: arraignment.
First, it is insisted that as on the former trial defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, which operated as an acquittal of murder in the first degree, charged in the indictment, under the rule laid down in the case of the State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32, defendant could not again be put upon his trial without a new arraignment, and that as the record does not show such an arraignment, the judgment should be reversed. As far as the case of the State v. Ross has gone, it has never been held to go further than that when a person is convicted of murder in the second degree on an indictment for murder in the first degree, and such judgment is reversed, such person can only be tried the second time for murder in the second degree, or some grade of manslaughter. It does not go to the extent of requiring a new arraignment; and as the record before us shows an arraignment of defendant and an entry of his plea of not guilty, that is sufficient. The plea of not guilty thus entered on his original arraignment was not limited to the charge murder in the first degree, but applied also to any degree of homicide below that grade.
It is also insisted that the court e in not allowing medical experts to state their opinion as to defendant being afflicted with erotomania, defined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. United States, No. 46
...47 S.Ct. 96, 71 L.Ed. 817 (citing Trono v. United States); Butler v. State, 177 Miss. 91, 100, 170 So. 148. Missouri.—See State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, 540—541; State v. Stallings, 334 Mo. 1, 5, 64 S.W.2d 643. Nebraska.—Bohanan v. State, 18 Neb. 57, 58—77, 24 N.W. 390, submission of cause set......
-
State v. LaMance, No. 37467.
...was there held that it was the duty of the trial court to define such terms. In that case this court approved the ruling in State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, l.c. 540, where the court tersely "It is insisted, however, that the court should in some instruction have properly defined the words malic......
-
Spidle v. State, No. 54410
...on the same footing as if the original trial had ended in a mistrial by reason of the jury's failure to agree on a verdict. State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, held that the 1875 constitutional provision reversed prior cases (State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32) which held that a retrial could not be held on ......
-
State v. Goddard
...aside, the defendant cannot again be tried for murder in the first degree. State v. Billings, 140 Mo. 204, 41 S. W. 778; State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538; State v. Bruffey, 75 Mo. 393; State v. Anderson, 89 Mo. 312, 1 S. W. 135; State v. Punshon, 133 Mo. 44, 34 S. W. 25. But in this case the defe......
-
Green v. United States, No. 46
...47 S.Ct. 96, 71 L.Ed. 817 (citing Trono v. United States); Butler v. State, 177 Miss. 91, 100, 170 So. 148. Missouri.—See State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, 540—541; State v. Stallings, 334 Mo. 1, 5, 64 S.W.2d 643. Nebraska.—Bohanan v. State, 18 Neb. 57, 58—77, 24 N.W. 390, submission of cause set......
-
State v. LaMance, No. 37467.
...was there held that it was the duty of the trial court to define such terms. In that case this court approved the ruling in State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, l.c. 540, where the court tersely "It is insisted, however, that the court should in some instruction have properly defined the words ......
-
Spidle v. State, No. 54410
...on the same footing as if the original trial had ended in a mistrial by reason of the jury's failure to agree on a verdict. State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, held that the 1875 constitutional provision reversed prior cases (State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32) which held that a retrial could not be held on ......
-
State v. Goddard
...aside, the defendant cannot again be tried for murder in the first degree. State v. Billings, 140 Mo. 204, 41 S. W. 778; State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538; State v. Bruffey, 75 Mo. 393; State v. Anderson, 89 Mo. 312, 1 S. W. 135; State v. Punshon, 133 Mo. 44, 34 S. W. 25. But in this case the defe......