State v. Simpson

• Decision Date: 24 June 1907
• Parties: STATE v. SIMPSON et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

103 S.W. 592

126 Mo. App. 169

STATE v. SIMPSON et al.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 24, 1907.

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1907.

1. INFORMATION — AMENDMENT — CHANGING ACCUSATION.

An information, charging accused with disturbing the peace of a neighborhood, under Rev. St. 1899, § 2159 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1386], providing that, if any person shall willfully disturb the peace of any neighborhood or of any family or of any person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, was properly amended by substituting

an information containing an additional count charging accused with disturbing the peace of individuals, since both counts deal with the same transaction, are founded on the same section of the statute, and call for the same punishment.

2. CRIMINAL LAW—GENERAL VERDICT—SUFFICIENCY.

Where there is but one offense charged in two counts of an information, a general verdict is sufficient.

3. INFORMATION—VERIFICATION.

An information presented to a justice of the peace need not be verified by the prosecuting attorney.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sullivan County; John P. Butler, Judge.

John Roy Simpson and others were convicted of disturbing the peace, and appeal. Affirmed.

Wilson & Clapp, for appellants. E. F. Nelson and J. P. Painter, for the State.

JOHNSON, J.

The prosecuting attorney of Sullivan county filed an information charging the defendants (five in number) with disturbing the peace of a neighborhood. Afterward, an amended information was filed, which contains two counts. The charge in the first is substantially the same as that made in the original information. In the second, defendants are charged with disturbing the peace of certain designated persons. A severance of the parties defendant was granted, and each trial resulted in the return of a general verdict of guilty. All of the defendants appealed to the circuit court, where, by appropriate motions, they raised the questions of law we now are called on to decide. The motions were overruled. The state then dismissed the first count, and the cases were consolidated and tried as one. Defendants were convicted on the second count, and, after unsuccessfully moving for a new trial and to arrest the judgment, appealed to this court.

First, it is argued by defendants that to disturb the peace of a neighborhood is by statute made a separate and distinct offense from that of disturbing the peace of individuals (section 2159, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1386]), and therefore that the state should not have been permitted to amend the original information by adding thereto the charge stated in the second count of the...