State v. Boggess

83 Mo. App. 121, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 136
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 30, 1900
StatusPublished

This text of 83 Mo. App. 121 (State v. Boggess) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Boggess, 83 Mo. App. 121, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 136 (Mo. Ct. App. 1900).

Opinion

BOND, J.

The defendant was arrested on a warrant issued by a justice upon the complaint of a private person charging him with selling liquor without a license. The prosecuting attorney framed an information, reciting that it was based on this complaint and also upon hi's own knowledge, charging the defendant with the same offense. After a trial before a justice, to whom the cause was taken on change of venue, defendant appealed to the circuit court, where he was tried, convicted and granted a new trial, whereupon he withdrew his plea of not guilty, in writing, and moved the court to quash the information for certain reasons specifically stated. This motion was overruled, to which exception was duly preserved. Upon a second trial defendant was again convicted, and appealed to this court.

It has been repeatedly ruled that the state is not entitled to an appeal or writ of error on the quashing of an information for insufficiency, for the reason that such a right rests in legislative grant, and there is no statute in this state giving it. State v. Clipper, 142 Mo. 474; State v. Carr, 142 Mo. 607; State v. Cornelius, 143 Mo. 179. Since the argument [123]*123and submission of the case at bar the supreme court has decided that for the same reason a defendant who has been convicted upon a charge preferred in an information, is not entitled to an appeal from such conviction. State v. Brown, 153 Mo. 578. "Whether this ruling can be extended to a conviction in the St. Louis court of criminal correction (2 R. S. 1889, p. 2156, sec. 26), need not be decided, since the case at bar did not originate in that tribunal. It is certainly a controlling authority in the present case. The appeal taken herein is therefore dismissed.

All concur.

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

Related

State v. Clipper
44 S.W. 264 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Carr
44 S.W. 776 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Cornelius
44 S.W. 717 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Brown
55 S.W. 76 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 Mo. App. 121, 1900 Mo. App. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boggess-moctapp-1900.