State v. Steptoe

• Decision Date: 31 October 1877
• Citation: 65 Mo. 640
• Parties: THE STATE v. STEPTOE, APPELLANT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

65 Mo. 640

THE STATE

v.STEPTOE, APPELLANT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1877.

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.

P. W. Fauntleroy & James H. Hutchings for appellant.

1. Sec. 20, p. 1089, Wag. Stat. Vol. 2, is mandatory and not merely directory. The separate indictment then, against the defendant, being thus directly contrary to the plain and imperative provisions o the statute, is clearly invalid and will not support a judgment. And where a judgment is irregularly obtained against the provisions of a statute or the rules of a court, a party is entitled to have it set aside without showing any merits. Doan v. Holly, 27 Mo. 257.

2. But even if the statute were only directory, defendant's motion to quash should have been sustained, as the State could then have corrected the error by indicting the parties jointly as the law required. Lisle v. State, 6 Mo. 426.

3. The verdict was fatally defective in not specifying of what offence it found the defendant guilty. The object of this requirement is to enable the court to see that the proper punishment is assessed. There could have been a conviction of grand larceny or petit larceny as well as of robbery in the first degree under the indictment. State v. Jenkins, 36 Mo. 372; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; State v. Farrar, 38 Mo. 457.

J. L. Smith, Attorney General, for respondent.

The record shows that the jury returned the following verdict into court: “State of Missouri vs. John Steptoe. We, the jury, find John Steptoe guilty of robbery, and assess his punishment at ten years in the state penitentiary.” No objection appears to have been made to the verdict in the criminal court, but in the Court of Appeals the appellant insisted that the verdict was invalid. There is only one count in the indictment and that is for robbery in the first degree. It was therefore not necessary to specify in the verdict the degree of the crime of which the defendant was guilty. No degree of offense being found inferior to that charged, a general verdict is sufficient for a conviction upon the indictment so framed. State v. Shoemaker, 7 Mo. 177; State v. Matrassey, 47 Mo. 295. There is a certificate of the clerk of the criminal court as to the form of a verdict returned, and also a stipulation of counsel that the record might be considered as amended so as to show that such was the case. It does not appear that the stipulation was ever filed, and therefore the record, as to the verdict returned, remains as it appears on page three of the transcript, which states that the jury found the defendant guilty of robbery. Admitting, however, that the facts are as stated in the clerk's certificate, the verdict therein contained is still good, and sufficient to support a verdict. State v. Matrassey, supra.

NORTON, J.

Defendant was indicted at a term of the St. Louis criminal court, held in January, 1875, for robbery in the first degree. At the March term of said court he was tried and convicted and his puhisnment assessed at ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals of St. Louis, where upon a hearing, the judgment of the criminal court was affirmed, from which defendant has appealed to this court. On the trial of the cause it appeared from the evidence of the prosecuting witness, that the robbery was committed jointly by one Simon Coen and defendant, that each of them was separately indicted, Steptoe, the defendant, being indicted in January, 1875, and Coen the following March. On this state of facts the defendant's counsel filed his motion to quash the indictment on the ground that sec. 20, Wag. Stat. 1089 requires that “when two or more persons are charged with having committed an offense jointly, all concerned shall be included in one indictment.”

1. PLEADING CRIMINAL: indictment for crime jointly committed.

We think it was intended by this section that when two or more persons are charged before the grand jury with the the joint commission of a crime, in preferring a bill they shall find it against all who are charged, and not indict one and let the others go free, so that they will be at liberty to appear and testify in the interest of their confederate. The fact that Coen was not included in the indictment with defendant could certainly work no injury to him, and it is difficult to perceive any reasons why the indictment should be held invalid on...