State v. Wilcoxen
| Decision Date | 31 July 1866 |
| Citation | 38 Mo. 370 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant, v. JAMES F. WILCOXEN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Newton Circuit Court.
Attorney General for appellant.
The indictment is sufficient--R. C. 1855, p. 574, § 20. The time at which the offence was committed is not of the essence of the offence, and hence the indictment is not defective for failing to state the time when the offence was committed--R. C. 1855, p. 1176, § 27.
The second ground for quashing the indictment assigned by defendant is untrue in fact; the indictment in this regard charges that the property was seized, taken and carried away “from the presence, possession, and against the will of Frederick O. Clark, which is the same as to charge in the presence of Frederick O. Clark.
T. A. Sherwood, for respondent.
The indictment is insufficient, because, being drawn under the 20th section (R. C. 1855, p. 574), it fails to charge that the property was taken from the person or in the presence. Indictments based on statutes must state all the circumstances within the statutory definition of the offence, so as to bring the defendant precisely within the terms and words of the act--State v. Helm, 6 Mo. 263, and cases cited; Anthony v. State, 13 S. & M. 263; State v. McKenzie, 42 Me. 392, and cases cited; State v. Mitchell, 25 Mo. 420; State v. Fleetwood, 16 Mo. 448.
The respondent was indicted in the Circuit Court of Newton county for robbery in the first degree, in taking a horse the property of Frederick O. Clark; and on his motion the indictment was quashed because the time at which the offence was committed was not specified, and because the indictment did not charge that the property was taken from the person or in the presence of Clark, or that the respondent feloniously put Clark in fear of some immediate injury to his person.
The indictment is based on sec. 20 of the act in regard to crimes and punishments (R. C. 1855, p. 574), which provides that “every person who shall be convicted of feloniously taking the property of another from his person, or in his presence, and against his will, by violence to his person, or by putting him in fear of some immediate injury to his person, shall be adjudged guilty of robbery in the first degree.” The indictment substantially follows the language of the statute, and charges that the defendant did feloniously rob, steal, take, seize and carry away the horse from the presence and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...... the prosecuting witness and feloniously robbed, stole and. took from him the sum of $ 7.25. This is sufficient. It is. not necessary, at least in Missouri, to allege that the. putting in fear was done feloniously. State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370; State v. Davidson, 38 Mo. 374; 2 Bish. Crim. Proc., sec. 1003; Kelly, Crim. Law, sec. 575; R. S. 1889, sec. 3530. . . II. The second contention is, that the court erred in failing to. instruct the jury that, before they could convict defendants. of robbery, ......
-
State v. Sumpter
...the failure to state the year, would not be fatal, where time is not of the essence of the offense. [State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306; State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370.] That rule has since been followed by this court down to the present time: State v. Fields, 262 Mo. 158, 170 S.W. 1132; State v. C......
-
State v. Pippey
...State v. Goodwin, 300 S.W. 725; Secs. 3503, 3563, 3564, 3565, R. S. 1929; State v. Tunnell, 296 S.W. 423; Sec. 3391, R. S. 1929; State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370. General assignments of error in motion for new trial will not be considered on appeal, hence points 1, 2 and 3 in motion for new tr......
-
State v. Ward
...or in any manner affected because the date of the offense is omitted. Our statute is express on this point. R. S. 1879, § 1821; State v. Wilcoxen, 38 Mo. 370; State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306. And by the terms of the section just cited the validity of an indictment cannot be overthrown, nor a ju......