State v. Spear
| Decision Date | 30 September 1840 |
| Citation | 6 Mo. 644 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. SPEAR. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY.
BRICKEY, for The State. 1. The Circuit Court erred in excluding proper and competent evidence offered on behalf of the State. 2. The Court erred in not permitting the evidence offered by the State to go to the jury as circumstantial evidence to sustain the indictment. 3. The Court erred by giving instructions to the jury which the state of facts from the record did not warrant.
As to the statutory provisions on this subject, see Digest, p. 312, § 3; 4 Mo. R. 487.
The appellee was indicted at the February term of 1839, of the Cape Girardeau Circuit Court, for selling spiritous liquors to an Indian. The indictment contained two counts, the first of which charged, that defendant sold a half pint of whisky to a certain Indian, whose name was unknown to the grand jurors; and the second charged that defendant gave the said liquor to an Indian, &c. Upon the indictment the defendant was tried and acquitted by the verdict of a jury. The State appealed. From the bill of exceptions it appears that after the State had given evidence conducing to show one instance of defendant selling or giving liquor to an Indian, the attorney for the State desired to give other breaches of the statute committed on the same day, and at the same place, by selling liquor to other Indians. This the Court excluded. The Court also instructed the jury, that they must be satisfied that the Indian to whom the liquor was sold or given was a full blooded Indian, and that the law prohibiting the sale of liquors to Indians did not extend to half breeds.
The counsel for the defendant moves this Court to dismiss the appeal, because an appeal does not lie for the State in a criminal case.
Whether an appeal to this court lies in a criminal case, as well for the State as for the defendant, I do not deem very material to determine in this case. The statute gives an appeal in criminal cases generally, without any exclusion of the State from its benefit, and I see no reason why the State should not have an appeal as well as a writ of error, which it is admitted will lie. But whether the case was brought here by appeal or by writ of error, I hold that the verdict of acquittal is a complete protection to the defendant against any further proceedings. The Constitution declares (art. 13, § 10,) that no person, after having been once acquitted by a jury, can for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stout v. State ex rel. Caldwell
...not be pursued. Commonwealth v. Prall, 146 Ky. 109, 142 S.W. 202; Jones v. State, 15 Ark. 261; State v. Czarnikow, 20 Ark. 160; State v. Spear, 6 Mo. 644. ¶37 As a penalty for cutting timber on the public lands of a state, in addition to criminal punishment, punitive damages, such as double......
-
Stout v. State
...... punishment and the forfeiture could be administered in one. proceeding, there was no reason why two proceedings should. not be pursued. Commonwealth v. Prall, 146 Ky. 109,. 142 S.W. 202; Jones v. State, 15 Ark. 261; State. v. Czarnikow, 20 Ark. 160; State v. Spear, 6. Mo. 644. . . As a. penalty for cutting timber on the public lands of a state, in. addition to criminal punishment, punitive damages, such as. double or treble the value of the timber cut, may be imposed,. without infringing the former jeopardy provision. State. v. ......
-
State v. Brunn
...v. Garcia, 120 Cal.App.Supp. 767, 7 P.2d 401; State v. Van Horton, 26 Iowa, 402; State v. Anderson, Miss., 3 Smedes & M. 751; State v. Spear, 6 Mo. 644; State v. Peck, 83 Mont. 327, 271 P. 707; v. Ostwalt, 118 N.C. 1208, 24 S.E. 660, 32 L.R.A. 396; Portland v. Erickson, 39 Or. 1, 62 P. 753;......
-
State v. Carr
...to quash, demurrer, or motion in arrest. This statute was doubtless passed because of some doubt expressed by one of the judges in State v. Spear, 6 Mo. 644, decided in 1840, whether an appeal would lie in behalf of the state in a criminal case. Construing this statute, this court held, in ......