State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 31 October 1877 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. ROBERT J. SMITH, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court.--HON. DAVID L. HAWKINS, Judge.
J. B. Dennis for appellant.J. L. Smith, Attorney General, for the State, cited M. & M. Ins. Co. v. Curran, 45 Mo. 142; Goff v. Mulholland, 33 Mo. 203; Miller v. Whitson, 40 Mo. 97; Dear v. State, 14 Mo. 348; Jaccard v. Davis, 43 Mo. 535; Phillips v. Phillips, 46 Mo. 607.
All the instructions, which were asked for by defendant, were given except one, and that was properly refused, because the substance of the refused instruction, had already, and in a much better form, been given in the second instruction of the court for the defendant. There was no error in the instructions given for the State; and the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, was proper. The ground alleged in the motion was, that Andrew Welch committed perjury on the trial of the cause, and that, on a new trial, defendant could prove it; and also that he had committed crimes in Cape Girardeau county and other places. The motion was accompanied by affidavits of defendant, Nathan M. Griggs, John H. Payne and S. E. Allen, defendant stating his surprise at the testimony of said Welch, and the other affiants respectively, that Welch had made statements to them contradictory of what he testified to on the trial of the accused.
The granting of a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, is a matter somewhat in the discretion of the trial court, and when no abuse of that discretion is shown, this court is not inclined to interfere. The newly discovered evidence, in this case, would have had no tendency to prove any fact or facts upon which defendant relied as a defense, but only to impeach the veracity of Welch, a witness for the State; and the affidavit of the defendant shows that he knew that Welch was to be a witness for the State against him. He should have prepared beforehand to impeach the witness, and no reason is shown for not doing so, except that he was surprised by his evidence. The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
...... Ashcraft, 48 Ala. 15; 26. Wis. 648; 2 Thomp. on Neg., sec. 58, p. 1266; Field on Dam.,. sec. 886; Reid v. Ins Co., 58 Mo. 421; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 163-4; Edens v. Railroad, 72. Mo. 212. Damages must be left largely to the discretion of. the jury. It, however, is not at ... City of Macon, 83 Mo. 345; State v. Hill, 65. Mo. 84; Whitsett v. Ransom, 79 Mo. 258; Cook v. Railroad, 56 Mo. 380; State v. Smith, 65 Mo. 313. As to Forney, after seeing his affidavit, and those of. the twelve jurors, the judge could have found in no other way. than as he ......
-
The State v. Welsor
...... Pagels, 92 Mo. 300. (6) It is well settled that a new. trial will not be granted on the ground of newly-discovered. evidence which is simply intended to contradict the testimony. of a witness at the original trial. State v. Ray, 53. Mo. 345; State v. Butler, 67 Mo. 59; State v. Smith, 65 Mo. 313; State v. Rockett, 87 Mo. 666. (7) The trial court had the undoubted right to refuse to. consider affidavits in support of the motion for new trial. filed after the time. See Seaton's case, 106 Mo. 198. (8). The affidavits on the part of the state flatly contradicted. those for the ......
-
The State v. Bauerle
...and was cumulative and not sufficient to grant a new trial, that is as to the affidavits of Charles Williams and Robert Johnson. State v. Smith, 65 Mo. 313; State Butler, 67 Mo. 59; Snyder v. Burnham, 77 Mo. 52; State v. Stewart, 127 Mo. 290; State v. Woodward, 95 Mo. 129; State v. Rockett,......
-
State v. Luke
...... were prayed for by defendant, but refused, and no error was. committed in refusing to give said instructions. Where proper. instructions are given upon any question, it is not error to. refuse others containing the same principle. State v. Walton, 74 Mo. 270; State v. Smith, 80 Mo. 516. (8) The motion for a new trial on the ground of. newly-discovered evidence does not state that the evidence is. material, or what efforts had been made to discover it in. time. State v. Fritterer, 65 Mo. 422; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345; State v. Laughlin, 27 Mo. 111;. State v. ......