The State v. Hunt
| Decision Date | 03 July 1905 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. HUNT, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Douglas Circuit Court. -- Hon. Jno. T. Moore, Judge.
Affirmed.
Burkhead & Clarke for appellant.
(1) The information does not charge that the alleged burning was done in the State of Missouri. This must be done, if for no other purpose than to show that the situs of the offense is within the jurisdiction of the court. Collins v. State, 6 Tex.App. 647; Robins v. State, 9 Tex.App. 663; State v. Conley, 39 Me. 78; Cook v. State, 20 Fla. 802; Thompson v. State, 51 Miss. 353; State v. Ames, 10 Mo. 743; State v. Walker, 14 Mo. 398. (2) The accused is not informed by the information of the particular act concerning which he must prepare his proof for defense. The information should identify the building by describing the particular location or by the name of the owner or occupant. State v Wacker, 16 Mo.App. 417; State v. Kindrick, 21 Mo.App. 507; State v. Cassity, 49 Mo.App. 300; Wheat v. State, 6 Mo. 455; State v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 340; State v. Jones, 68 Mo. 197; McGary v. People, 46 N.Y. 153; Stratton v. State, 13 Ark. 688; State v. Welch, 28 Mo. 600; State v Krueger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Rockforde, 52 Mo 199; State v. Maupin, 57 Mo. 205; State v. Raymond, 54 Mo.App. 425; State v. Stegall, 65 Mo.App. 243; State v. Ellis, 71 Mo.App. 269; State v. Fugate, 66 Mo.App. 625; State v. Rector, 126 Mo. 328; State v. Hogan, 164 Mo. 654; State v. Shierauf, 167 Mo. 429; State v. Gassord, 103 Mo.App. 143. (3) The building is not identified by charging or averring ownership. State v. Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 273. (4) The information was filed on September 8, 1904, and the court instructed the jury to convict the defendant if they found that he had committed the act within three years prior to September 26, 1904, which was error. State v. Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 273.
Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General, and Frank Blake, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) The information sufficiently charges the fact that the crime was committed in the State of Missouri. R.S. 1899, sec. 2527; Kelley's Crim. Law, p. 396; State v. Ames, 10 Mo. 460; State v. Goode, 24 Mo. 361; State v. Simon, 50 Mo. 370; State v. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149. (2) The information identified sufficiently the building which is alleged to have been burned by charging that it is a house of public worship, the "property of the General Baptist church in said county, and erected for public use, to-wit, for the public worship of God." The particular location of the building is not necessary to be alleged. (3) No prejudicial error was committed in instructing the jury to convict defendant if they found that he had committed the act within three years prior to September 26, 1904, the date when the amended information was filed.
On the 8th day of September, 1904, the prosecuting attorney of Douglas county, Missouri, filed an information in the circuit court of said county charging the defendant with the crime of arson in setting fire to and burning a church building in said county on or about the 16th day of June, 1904. Thereafter, on September 26, 1904, he filed an amended information by leave of court, charging the defendant with the same offense. Upon trial had, the defendant was convicted of the crime charged, and his punishment fixed at five years imprisonment in the State penitentiary. After unsuccessful motions for new trial and in arrest, the defendant saved his exceptions, and appeals.
On Thursday, the 16th day of June, 1904, a country Baptist church was destroyed by fire in the said county of Douglas, State of Missouri. It appears from the evidence that the defendant owned and had in his possession a horse, the right hind foot of which had some peculiarity, in that it seemed to turn in, or, rather, to one side, and when the horse walked or ran it made a "winding track." The day before the building was burned there had been a rain, and witnesses for the State testified that the horse's tracks were found leading from the direction of the town of Arnold up to the hitching place near the church, and back again toward Arnold. The defendant lived about three and one-half miles north-west from the church, and west of the town of Arnold, which was two and one-half miles from the church. A witness for the State, by the name of G. P. Everhart, measured the foot of the defendant's horse on one occasion when it was ridden to his house by a son of defendant, and he testified that the tracks leading up to and away from the church corresponded to and fitted the measurements of the horse's foot. It seems that some time before the building was burned the defendant's son had been arrested for disturbing religious worship at this church, and defendant made various threats about its destruction in the event the prosecution was not stopped. About two weeks before the fire he stated to witnesses who testified in behalf of the State that if this was not done the church house would be burned to ashes, and said: "I will stop the Sunday school and prayer-meeting, both." The prosecution was not dismissed, and about two weeks thereafter the church was destroyed by fire. There was other evidence as to the measurements of the horse's foot and the correspondence thereof with the measurements of the tracks seen near the church, and also as to the threats made by defendant that the church would be burned down if the suit against his son was not dismissed. The evidence also showed that the shoes of the horse had been removed before the burning of the building.
The defense was an alibi, and several members of the defendant's family testified that he was at home on the night of the burning of the building, but the testimony was not exactly in accord as to the hour he went to bed.
The information upon which defendant was convicted was, in substance, as follows:
The information is assailed upon various grounds, but only such of them as seem to be worthy of consideration will be noticed. One of these is that the information does not charge that the alleged burning was done in the State of Missouri and does not, therefore, show that the situs of the offense was within the jurisdiction of the court. After stating in the information that "Fred Stewart, prosecuting attorney within and for the county of Douglas, in the State of Missouri, informs the court that J. W. Hunt, on or about the 16th day of June, 1904, in the said county of Douglas, did then and there," etc., it was wholly unnecessary to again repeat "in the State of Missouri." By section 2527, Revised Statutes 1899, it is provided: "It shall not be necessary to state any venue in the body of any indictment or information; but the county or other jurisdiction named in the margin thereof shall be taken to be the venue for all the facts stated in the body of the same." The words "then and there," together with the words "there situate," clearly mean that the offense was committed in the county of Douglas, State of Missouri, as the caption to the information shows that the information was filed and the prosecution had in Douglas county, Missouri, and practically the same allegations appear in the first part of the information itself. Indictments similar in form have frequently been held valid by this court. [State...
To continue reading
Request your trial