State v. Brooks

507 S.W.2d 375, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 658
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedFebruary 11, 1974
Docket57859
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 507 S.W.2d 375 (State v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Brooks, 507 S.W.2d 375, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 658 (Mo. 1974).

Opinion

STOCKARD, Commissioner.

The defendant was found guilty by a jury of murder in the first degree. The notice of appeal was filed prior to April 9, 1973.

*376 The only point in appellant’s brief challenges the sufficiency of the information which, in its material parts, is as follows:

“Now comes J. Martin Kerr, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney * * * and upon his oath informs the court, that Felix Brooks * * * ¿jd then and there either alone or knowingly acting in concert with another, unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, premeditatedly, deliberately and of his malice aforethought, make an assault in and upon one Robert Kennedy, with a dangerous and deadly weapon, to-wit: a shotgun loaded with gunpowder and pellets, then and there inflicting upon said Robert Kennedy, within one year thereafter, to-wit: on the 8th day of May, 1971, in the county of Jackson and State of Missouri, died

The indictment by a grand jury, or an information, is the method by which a criminal proceeding is instituted. Rule 24.01 V.A.M.R. provides that it “shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” It is jurisdictional in the sense that if it fails to charge a crime the court acquires no jurisdiction to proceed, and whatever transpires thereafter is a nullity. Montgomery v. State, 454 S.W.2d 571 (Mo.1970); State v. Hasler, 449 S.W.2d 881 (Mo.App.1969). It is necessary to allege in an information or indictment all the elements of the crime intended to be charged, State v. Colbart, 411 S.W.2d 92 (Mo.1967), if such elements are missing they cannot be supplied by intendment or implication. State v. Cantrell, 403 S.W.2d 647 (Mo.1966). Also, where the information or indictment fails to contain an essential averment in the description of the offense it must be held bad even after verdict. State v. Forsythe, 406 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.1966).

In State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. 578 (1906), an information was held deficient after verdict because it failed to charge that a murder victim “was given a mortal wound by reason of the alleged assault upon him with the gun.” In addition to other deficiencies, the information in this case did not allege that the defendant inflicted a wound on Robert Kennedy from which he died, and therefore is insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

HOUSER, C., concurs.

PER CURIAM:

The foregoing opinion by STOCKARD, C., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

All of the Judges concur.

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

Related

Waggoner v. State
552 S.W.3d 601 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
Rupert v. State
250 S.W.3d 442 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Hicks
221 S.W.3d 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)
State v. Collins
154 S.W.3d 486 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2005)
State v. Frances
51 S.W.3d 18 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2001)
State v. Musil
935 S.W.2d 379 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Patrick
920 S.W.2d 633 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Reichert
854 S.W.2d 584 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
State v. Briscoe
847 S.W.2d 792 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1993)
State v. Parkhurst
845 S.W.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1993)
City of Kansas City v. Brammer
847 S.W.2d 90 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
Scharnhorst v. State
775 S.W.2d 241 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Schaeffer
782 S.W.2d 68 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
State Ex Rel. Light v. Sheffield
768 S.W.2d 590 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. McKinney
756 S.W.2d 527 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1988)
State v. Drinkard
750 S.W.2d 630 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. McKinzie
736 S.W.2d 567 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Smith
742 S.W.2d 198 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Shackelford
719 S.W.2d 943 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Voyles
691 S.W.2d 452 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
507 S.W.2d 375, 1974 Mo. LEXIS 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brooks-mo-1974.