State v. Ashcraft

95 Mo. 348
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided April 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Sherwood, J.

On motion of defendant, she was discharged because not brought to trial before the end of the third term of the court in which her case was pending. ■ R. S., sec. 1923.

The correctness of this action of the trial court cannot be considered, for the reason that the state is not allowed an appeal in this sort of a case. The state is only allowed an appeal in any criminal prosecution, where the indictment is quashed, adjudged insufficient on demurrer, or where judgment thereon is arrested. R. S., secs. 1985, 1986; State v. Bollinger, 69 Mo. 577.

Therefore, appeal dismissed.

All concur, Ray, J., absent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Ashcraft, 95 Mo. 348 (Mo. 1888).

95 Mo. 348 (State v. Ashcraft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Brooks
372 S.W.2d 83 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1963)
State v. Dickson
1958 OK CR 111 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1958)
State v. Pottinger
287 S.W.2d 782 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1956)
State v. Ross
94 S.W. 842 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1906)
State v. Wear
46 S.W. 1099 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Carr
44 S.W. 776 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Clipper
44 S.W. 264 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Marshall
27 S.W. 1107 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)