State v. Steptoe
| Decision Date | 31 January 1876 |
| Citation | 1 Mo.App. 19 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN STEPTOE, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. The statutory provision that, “when two or more persons are charged with having committed an offense jointly, all concerned shall be included in one indictment,” has no application to separate prosecutions not charging joint criminality.
2. Where it is made to appear that the verdict, as recorded, is different in form from the original handed in by the jury, it will be presumed that the alteration was made by direction of the court, with the consent of the jury. Such consent need not be entered on the record.
3. When the only count in an indictment charges robbery in the first degree, it is not necessary for the verdict to specify the degree of the crime committed, unless the jury find it to be inferior to that charged in the indictment.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Criminal Court.
Affirmed.
P. W. Fauntleroy and James W. Hutchings, for appellant, cited: State v. Jennings, 36 Mo. 372; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; State v. Farrar, 38 Mo. 457.
J. C. Normile, Circuit Attorney, for respondent, cited: Wag. Stat. 1107; State v. Matrassey, 47 Mo. 295.
The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, upon an indictment against him alone. It appeared from the testimony that the crime was perpetrated by the defendant jointly with one Simon Coen, against whom a separate charge for the same offense was prosecuted in the Court of Criminal Correction. Upon these facts the defendant moved to quash the indictment, under color of the following statutory provision: “When two or more persons are charged with having committed an offense jointly, all concerned shall be included in one indictment.” Wag. Stat. 1089, sec. 20. The defendant's interpretation of this statute is manifestly unauthorized. The true intent is that, if in any one proceeding the charge is that two or more persons have committed an offense jointly, the indictment must be so framed as to hold all to accountability for the act; and not so as to leave some of them to be prosecuted under a different indictment for the same offense. Thus, if in an indictment it be charged that A and B jointly killed C, it will not do to hold A alone in that indictment responsible for the crime of murder, and in another indictment, which recites the same joint killing, to hold B alone responsible. In the indictment under consideration there was no allegation that the defendant's crime was committed jointly with another person. It is not intended that, where a man is charged solely with the commission of a crime, the prosecution must fail if it appear that in some other court or proceeding another man is charged with having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keyes v. C.B. & Q. Railroad Co.
...v. Old Gem Catering Co., 18 S.W. (2d) 567; Turley v. Ammonia Co., 299 S.W. 53; Lummi Bay Packing Co. v. Kryder, 263 S.W. 543; State v. Steptoe, 1 Mo. App. 19; Lenartz v. Funk, 224 Ill. App. 180; Dalgren v. Israel, 204 Ill. App. 340; Nolan v. East, 132 Ill. App. 634; Roberts v. Roberts, 91 I......
-
Keyes v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
... ... without authority to recall the jurors and direct them to ... consider again the case and to bring in another verdict ... State v. Hubbs, 294 Mo. 224; Norvell v ... Deval, 50 Mo. 272; Newton v. Railroad, 168 ... Mo.App. 199; Singleton v. Exhibition Co., 172 ... Turley v. Ammonia Co., 299 S.W. 53; Lummi Bay ... Packing Co. v. Kryder, 263 S.W. 543; State v ... Steptoe, 1 Mo.App. 19; Lenartz v. Funk, 224 ... Ill.App. 180; Dalgren v. Israel, 204 Ill.App. 340; ... Nolan v. East, 132 Ill.App. 634; Roberts v ... ...
-
Hary v. Speer
...82. (2) It must be presumed that the verdict (for plaintiffs) entered on the record, was so entered with the consent of the jury. State v. Steptoe, 1 Mo.App. 21. (3) The record shows, beyond a doubt that the verdict entered was the verdict agreed upon by the jury and that there had been no ......
-
State v. Clymer
...and countenance, for they in the contemplation of the law are all principals.' See, also, State v. Steptoe, 65 Mo. 640, 642, affirming 1 Mo.App. 19; State v. 17 Mo.App. 328. d. The record does not sustain appellant's assertion that the prosecutor maneuvered to prevent appellant taking Crews......