State v. Terry
| Decision Date | 31 July 1860 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error, v. TERRY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. In an indictment for perjury, the false swearing must be charged to have been done feloniously.
2. Grand jurors may indict on their own information or knowledge; they may indict a person for perjury in testifying before themselves.
3. A person may commit perjury by falsely swearing, before a grand jury, that he did not know of any person who had, within twelve months, bet any money or property upon any game of cards in the county.
The defendant Terry was indicted for perjury charged to have been committed before the grand jury then sitting. The indictment recited the names of the grand jurors; that they were regularly empannelled and sworn and charged, &c. that Robert V. Glover was appointed foreman, and as such was legally authorized to administer oaths to witnesses; that defendant was subpœnaed, appeared and was duly sworn by said foreman as a witness; that it became and was a material question whether any person within the twelve months then last past, in the county of Cole, had bet any money or property upon any gaming table, bank, cards, or other device prohibited by law; “that said Henry Terry, being so sworn as aforesaid, contriving and intending to prevent the due course of justice, did then and there knowingly, falsely, wilfully and corruptly, state, depose, and swear before said grand jury, (so sworn as aforesaid to inquire as aforesaid), amongst other things, in substance and to the effect following, that is to say, that he, the said Henry, did not know of any person who had bet any money or property upon any game of cards within Cole county, and within the twelve months then last passed; and that he, the said Henry Terry, had seen no person or persons within the twelve months then last past, and in Cole county, bet any money or property at or upon any game played at or by means of cards or any other gaming device; and that he, the said Henry Terry, had no knowledge whatever that the law prohibiting gaming and playing at cards for money or property had been violated by any person at all,” &c. The indictment then proceeds to charge acts of gaming of which the defendant had knowledge, and closes by charging that Terry wilfully and corruptly did commit wilful and corrupt perjury.
This indictment was quashed on motion of defendant.
Knott, (attorney general,) for the State.
I. Grand juries may institute prosecutions on their own motion. The action of grand juries is not limited in this state to cases where the accused has been recognized or committed, nor is it essential to the validity of an indictment that the grand jury should make a formal presentment of the matter in court before finding the bill. There are hundreds of violations of the criminal code that, for want of a prosecutor to bring them to notice, would be indulged in with perfect impunity, had not the grand jury the power, and indeed were they not bound by their oath, to inquire into them and institute proceedings for them on their own motion. (See State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn. 272; State v. Ward, 2 Mo. 98, 120; 12 Mo. 406; R. C. 1855, p. 1172; 1 Opinions of Att'y Gen'ls, 22.) They may find indictments for offences committed in their immediate presence. Suppose a witness under examination before the grand jury should murder the circuit attorney in their presence; where would be the impropriety of waiting for the empannelling of another grand jury before an indictment can be found? It is not necessary that there should be a formal presentment before the finding of the bill. The almost universal practice of this state is against such formal presentment.
II. The grand jury had a right to ask the general question, whether defendant had seen any person bet any money, &c. He was bound to answer it. (State v. Ward, 2 Mo. 120.) It was a material question.
III. The word “feloniously” is left out of the indictment. This will invalidate it, under former decisions. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Faulkner
...jury swearing he did not know of any person betting upon any game of cards in the county in which the grand jury was impaneled. State v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368. This is also the law in other jurisdictions. In State v. Offutt, 4 Blackf. 355, the indictment was for perjury committed before the gra......
-
State v. Faulkner
...upon his testimony, are of no importance; it is sufficient, if it be shown that he was admitted as a witness and did testify." In State v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368, the prosecution was perjury committed before the grand jury in falsely swearing the defendant did not know of any person who had bet ......
-
Edwin Hale v. William Henkel
...unduly burden this opinion, but the following are the leading ones upon the subject: Ward v. State, 2 Mo. 120, 22 Am. Dec. 449; State v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368; Page 63 parte Brown 473; State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn. 272-280; State v. Magrath, 44 N. J. L. 227; Thompson & M. Juries, §§ 615-617. In Bl......
-
The State v. Burnett
... ... pending before the grand jury; fifthly, which testimony was ... false; and sixthly, that defendant knew the testimony to be ... false. Sec. 4344, R.S. 1909; State v. Lavalley, 9 ... Mo. 834; State v. Ackerman, 214 Mo. 325; State ... v. Moran, 216 Mo. 550; State v. Terry", 30 Mo ... 368; State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 546; State v ... Wakefield, 73 Mo. 549; State v. Day, 100 Mo ... 242; State v. Lehman, 175 Mo. 619; State v. Hunter, ... 181 Mo. 335 ... BROWN, ... P. J. Faris and Walker, JJ., concur ... ... \xC2" ... ...