State v. Stephens
| Decision Date | 30 April 1880 |
| Citation | 71 Mo. 535 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. STEPHENS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Johnson Criminal Court.--The case was tried before HENRY NEILL, ESQ., sitting as Special Judge.
REVERSED.
Land & Sparks and A. B. Logan for appellant.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
The defendant was indicted under section 1455, Revised Statutes, for breaking jail. We find nothing in the points assigned requiring comment, except the action of the special judge in regard to the plea of guilty entered by defendant. There is no bill of exceptions, signed in the usual way, before us, but the statutory method which is the same in criminal as in civil cases, (Rev. Stat., 1879, § 1921,) has been pursued, and the bill signed by three by-standers, (Ib. §§ 3637, 3638, 3640, 3641), and supported by five affidavits deposited in the clerk's office. Under the provisions of section 3641, supra, copies of these affidavits form a part of the record of the cause, and by them the truth of the bill of exceptions, which the judge refused to sign, is to be tried. Ib. § 3643.
We have carefully examined the affidavits thus filed in connection with the indorsement made upon the bill by the special judge, and after such perusal have reached the conclusion that the affidavits are less likely to err, as to the actual facts of the case, than the special judge. Taking this view of the matter, we find that the attorneys of the defendant, after the election of the special judge, and before he took his seat on the bench, had an interview with him, it would seem in the court room, and were led to believe, by the words and acts of the special judge, that if the defendant would plead guilty, he would receive the lowest punishment allowed by law; that this understanding was communicated to defendant, who thereupon pleaded guilty, but instead of the lowest, was awarded the highest punishment which the law prescribes. But if we take as true the indorsement made upon the bill by the special judge, the fact remains, as stated in the affidavits of the attorneys and the defendant, that they were induced to enter a plea of guilty, under the belief that by so doing a punishment less severe than the maximum would be awarded.
Viewing the matter, then, in either light, we feel constrained to say that it would better have comported with the proper exercise of a sound judicial discretion, had the special judge permitted the withdrawal of the plea of guilty, and the entry, in its stead, of the usual plea. The law is not composed of a series of snares and pitfalls for the unwary, neither does it favor what Judge Bliss terms “snap judgments.” Henslee v. Cannefax, 49 Mo. 295. If these remarks apply in a civil case, then, a fortiori, do they apply in a criminal prosecution, where the liberty of the prisoner is at stake.
Courts have always been accustomed to exercise a great degree of care in receiving pleas of guilty, in prosecutions for felonies, to see that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cosey v. State
......76. . . Courts. have always been accustomed to exercise a great degree of. care in receiving pleas of guilty in prosecution for. felonies, to see that the prisoner has not made his plea by. being misled, or under misapprehension or the like. . . State. v. Stephens, 71 Mo. 535; 2 Archbold, Crim. Pr. & Pl. 334. . . Blackstone. Commentaries, Vol. 4, p. 329, laid down the doctrine that. while a defendant in a capital case may enter a plea of. guilty and receive the supreme punishment of death, it is. nevertheless incumbent upon the trial court to ......
-
The State v. Borchert
...same, the record of said proceedings could be brought before this court by appeal on writ of error for our determination. [State v. Stephens, 71 Mo. 535; State Kring, 71 Mo. 551; State v. Dale, 222 S.W. l. c. 764; State v. Meyer, 222 S.W. l. c. 765.] IX. We have fully considered all the que......
-
State v. Kellar
......981, 122 Iowa. 104; Griffin v. State, 77 S.E. 1080; Woodward v. State, 78 S.E. 1009, 13 Ga.App. 130; Williams v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W. 173, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1009. (2) The. trial court erred in refusing to grant appellant leave to. withdraw his plea of guilty. State v. Stephens, 71. Mo. 535; State v. Dale, 222 S.W. 763, 282 Mo. 663;. State v. Abel, 8 S.W.2d 55; Moody v. Riechow, 38 Wash. 303, 80 P. 461; Krolage v. People, 224 Ill. 456, 79 N.E. 570; State v. Ferranto, 148 N.E. 362; Deloach v. State, 27. So. 618; Brown v. State, 109 So. 627; Mullen v. ......
-
State v. Hamilton
......417. And at the same time, this discretion. should be exercised liberally in favor of life and liberty. Krolage v. People, 224 Ill. 456; State v. Cimini, 53 Wash. 268; State v. Keller, 55. S.W.2d 969; State v. Cochran, 60 S.W.2d 1; State. v. Hare, 56 S.W.2d 141; State v. Stephens, 71. Mo. 535; State v. Kring, 71 Mo. 551. . . Roy. McKittrick, Attorney General, and William W. Barnes,. Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. . . (1) The. only matter before this court for review in this case is the. record proper. Sec. 3735, R. ......