State v. Trout
| Decision Date | 13 August 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3843.,3843. |
| Citation | 274 S.W. 1097 |
| Parties | STATE v. TROUT. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Butler County; Almon Ing, Judge.
Dave Trout was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Lawrence E. Tedrick and Yount & Kearby, all of Poplar Bluff, for appellant.
Defendant and his wife were charged, by information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Butler county, with the offense of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Upon trial, the wife of defendant was acquitted, and this defendant was convicted and has appealed from that judgment.
The information in this case was filed in the circuit court, and was signed by the prosecuting attorney, and was not verified as required by section 3849, Stat. 1919. After the panel of jurors were sworn to answer questions touching their qualifications to sit as jurors in this case, a motion to quash the information was filed by defendant, and as grounds therefor set up the fact that the information was not verified as required. This motion was overruled. The attention of the trial court was again called to the fact that this motion to quash had been overruled, in the motion for new trial, which motion was also overruled. We think the motion to quash was filed in time, and should have been sustained. The failure to verify the information when the trial court's attention was called to it by motion to quash and again in the motion for new trial, and the trial having proceeded to judgment upon an information that was not verified, will necessitate a reversal of this judgment. State v. Kelly, 188 Mo. 450, 87 S. W. 451, and cases there cited.
A search warrant was issued and served in this case, and before the trial a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained under it was filed and overruled. Neither the search warrant nor the affidavit on which it was based are preserved in this record, and we are therefore unable to pass upon the validity of the search warrant.
For the error noted, the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Kirkwood v. Publ. Serv. Comm., 31456.
...by substantial evidence, will be accepted as final. State ex rel. v. Pub. Serv. Commission, 291 Mo. 432; State ex rel. v. Busby, 274 S.W. 1097. (3) It is the function of the Public Service Commission to authorize the abandonment of unprofitable lines or portions of lines of a street railway......
-
State v. Donell
...Laws 1925, p. 195; State v. Baumann, supra, in which such amendment, after the jury had been sworn, was held proper. In State v. Trout (Mo. App.) 274 S. W. 1097, relied upon by appellant, the defendant, after the jury was sworn, filed a motion to quash because the information was not verifi......
-
State v. Donell
...Laws 1925, p. 195; State v. Baumann, supra, in which such amendment, after the jury had been sworn, was held proper. In State v. Trout (Mo. App.) 274 S.W. 1097, relied upon appellant, the defendant, after the jury was sworn, filed a motion to quash because the information was not verified. ......
-
State v. Hawes
...it and whether that presumption was overcome was a question for the jury. State v. Parks (Mo. App.) 13 S.W.(2d) 1107, 1108; State v. Trout (Mo. App.) 274 S. W. 1097; State v. Lee (Mo. App.) 298 S. W. 1044; State v. Heilman (Mo. App.) 246 S. W. 622; State v. Nelson (Mo. App.) 21 S.W. (2d) 19......