State v. Stonum

Citation62 Mo. 596
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JAMES W. STONUM, Appellant.
Decision Date31 May 1876
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Clinton County Circuit Court.Porter & Merryman, for Appellant, cited State vs. Mathews, 20 Mo., 55; McKnight vs. Wells, 1 Mo., 13; State vs. Cooper, 45 Mo., 65; Wagn. Stat., 1106, § 30.

J. A. Hockaday, Att'y Gen'l, for Respondent.

WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was convicted of petit larceny, and the only point now relied upon in this court is, that no instructions were given by the court. In the State vs. Mathews (20 Mo., 55) it was expressly adjudged, that it is the duty of the court in all criminal cases to instruct the jury, as to the law; that if the instructions offered are objectionable, the court should proceed to give such as the law requires. Aside from this being binding authority, we think it is sustained by good reason. Juries should not be allowed to guess at the law in such cases. The court should instruct them as to their duties and as to the law in the case. Reversed and remanded.

All the judges concur, except Judge Vories, who is absent.

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • State v. Davis
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 11, 1935
    ...S.W. 536, 232 Mo. 317; State v. Lackey, 132 S.W. 602, 230 Mo. 707; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 155; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; Hardy v. State, 7 Mo. 304. Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Wm. Orr Sawyers, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. (1) Th......
  • State v. Warren
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 25, 1930
    ...by defendant's refused Instruction D-D. State v. Hendricks, 172 Mo. 654; State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 558; State v. Jones. 61 Mo. 232; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596: State v. Reed, 154 Mo. 122; State v. Moore, 160 Mo. 443; State v. McKenzie, 228 Mo. 385; State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271. (5) The cour......
  • State v. Conway
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1912
    ...do, whether requested or excepted to or not, was reversible error. State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546; State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55. In so holding this court necessarily distinguished between civil and crim......
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1885
    ...to give all proper instructions, whether asked for or not, and that a failure to do so will warrant a reversal. 65 Mo. 155; 61 Mo. 233; 62 Mo. 596; 20 Mo. 55; 66 Mo. 149. But it has never been expressly held, so far as I am advised, nor does it necessarily follow from the above cases, that ......
  • 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