State v. Steen

Decision Date02 May 1893
Citation22 S.W. 461,115 Mo. 474
PartiesSTATE v. STEEN.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Polk county; A. A. Underwood, Special Judge.

John Steen was convicted of an attempt to poison, and appeals. Affirmed.

B. J. Emerson, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

At the March term, 1888, of the circuit court of Webster county, an indictment was preferred by the grand jury against defendant, which, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: "That one John Steen, late of the county and state aforesaid, on or about the 12th day of February, 1888, at the county of Webster, state aforesaid, did then and there, unlawfully, feloniously, knowingly, willfully, and maliciously administer to one Henry Anderson a large quantity of a certain deadly poison, called `strychnine,' to wit, two drachms of the said strychnine, with intent, then and there, feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, him, the said Henry Anderson, to kill and murder, which said poison was then and there actually taken and swallowed by the said Henry Anderson, but whereof death did not ensue; contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, summoned as aforesaid, do further find and present that the said John Steen, late of said county and state aforesaid, on or about the 12th day of February, 1888, at the county of Webster, state of Missouri, unlawfully, knowingly, and feloniously did mingle and mix a certain deadly poison, called `strychnine' with a certain drink, called `whisky,' which said whisky the said John Steen did then and there cause to be prepared and mixed with said poison, strychnine, with the intent, feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, the said Henry Anderson to injure and kill; he, the said John Steen, then and there believing that said whisky would be given to and drank by the said Henry Anderson. — contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state." The cause was continued from term to term until the March term, 1891, when defendant prayed and was granted a change of venue from the Webster circuit court, and said cause was sent to the criminal court of Greene county. At the November term, 1891, of the criminal court of Greene county, this cause was stricken from the docket "for want of jurisdiction," and the papers returned to the circuit clerk of Webster county. At the March term, 1892, of the Webster circuit court, the petition and affidavit heretofore filed by defendant, praying for a change of venue, was granted, with the order that the venue be changed to the circuit court of Polk county. At the April term, 1892, of the Polk circuit court, defendant filed his motion, asking to be discharged, which was overruled. At the same term, defendant filed his affidavit for change of venue from the regular judge of said court, and asked the election of a special judge, whereupon A. A. Underwood was duly and regularly elected, and took the oath of office. Defendant filed his motion, asking to be discharged, which was overruled. He then filed his written application for a continuance, which was also overruled. Upon the trial of said cause the demurrer of defendant to the evidence under the first count of the indictment was sustained, and defendant was convicted on the second count, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years. After unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest, defendant appealed. None of the testimony adduced at the trial of this cause has been preserved in the bill of exceptions. No brief has been filed by defendant.

1. There are 12 causes assigned by defendant, in his motion for a new trial, why the verdict of the jury should have been set aside, and a new trial awarded him. Several of these are in regard to the action of the court as to the introduction, admission, and exclusion of evidence, the overruling defendant's motion for a continuance, and remarks of the prosecuting attorney during the argument before the jury; but they cannot be considered by this court, since the evidence and the remarks of the prosecuting attorney are not preserved in the bill of exceptions. "Under the well-settled practice and rule of this court, the evidence, the motion for new trial and in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Slorah
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1919
    ...of chapter 136, R. S., to a trial at the May term. The question of waiver in capital cases we shall discuss later, but see State v. Steen, 115 Mo. 474, 22 S. W. 461; State v. Marshall, 115 Mo. 383, 22 S. W. 452; Moreland v. Georgia, 51 Ga. 192; Com. v. Zec, 262 Pa. 272, 105 Atl. 279, 281; B......
  • State v. Wear
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1898
    ...court of Ohio in Ex parte McGehan, 22 Ohio St. 442, and by this court in State v. Marshall, 115 Mo. 383, 22 S. W. 452, and State v. Steen, 115 Mo. 474, 22 S. W. 461. Let us consider somewhat more in detail whether, at the January term, 1895, of the Dunklin circuit court, the defendant was e......
  • The State v. Wear
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1898
    ... ... his right to a discharge, and this presumption was indulged ... by this court in Ex parte Donaldson , 44 Mo. 149, and ... by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Ex parte McGehan , 22 ... Ohio St. 442, and by this court in State v ... Marshall , 115 Mo. 383, 22 S.W. 452, and State v ... Steen , 115 Mo. 474, 22 S.W. 461 ...          Let us ... consider somewhat more in detail whether at the January term, ... 1895, of the Dunklin circuit court, the defendant was ... entitled to his discharge for laches on the part of the ... prosecution, under the record evidence offered ... ...
  • State v. Hepperman
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1942
    ...v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200; State v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; Commonwealth v. Stafford, 12 Cushing, 619; State v. Taylor, 190 S.W. 330; State v. Steen, 115 Mo. 474. (2) verdict is in proper form. Sec. 4378, R. S. 1939; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193, 36 S.W.2d 923; State v. Goodwin, 333 Mo. 168, 6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT