State v. Burns

85 Mo. 47
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 15, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 85 Mo. 47 (State v. Burns) 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. Burns, 85 Mo. 47 (Mo. 1884).

Opinion

Shebwood, J.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of robbery, and being tried, was found guilty, and his punishment assessed at ten years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. As the evidence upon which the conviction was founded, is not preserved, the only point for consideration is the denial, by the court, of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, based upon the remark made by Tacke, after he and others had been sworn on their voir dire, and, having answered satisfactorily, were awaiting the completion of the panel of thirty-four, from which the jury were to be drawn, when Tacke made this remark: “ There is a living for every one in this country, and all these thieving sons of l>-s ought to be sent up.” This remark was unknown to counsel of defendant until after the trial was over, and forms the ground for the motion for a new trial.

The expression, or the existence of bias, or prejudice against crime constitutes no cause of challenge. Davis v. Hunter, 7 Ala. 135; Williams v. State, 3 Kelly 453 ; Albrecht v. Walker, 73 Ill. 69 ; Kroer v. People, 78 Ill. 294. Besides, although the remark of Tacke was riot heard by defendant) s counsel, non constat, but that it [50]*50was heard by defendant himself. If it was heard by •defendant himself, and constituted any ground of objection to Tacke, then defendant was guilty of inexcusable negligence in not communicating the fact to his counsel, s© that the proper steps could be taken. As there is no ■evidence preserved in the record; as it does not appear in what connection the words in question were spoken; .as every presumption attends the acts and doings of a •court of general jurisdiction; as a party who asserts that error has been committed, must prove it, we find nothing in the record, taking it as a whole, to warrant a reversal of the judgment, and so we affirm it.

All ■.concur.

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

Related

State v. Brown
599 S.W.2d 498 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1980)
State v. Alarid
62 P.2d 817 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1936)
State v. McGee
83 S.W.2d 98 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
State v. Trainer
80 S.W.2d 131 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
State v. Lowry
12 S.W.2d 469 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1929)
State v. Stephens
189 S.W. 630 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1916)
State ex rel. Iba v. Ellison
165 S.W. 369 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1914)
State v. Rasco
144 S.W. 449 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State v. Mathews
100 S.W. 420 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1907)
State v. Barrington
95 S.W. 235 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
State v. Richardson
92 S.W. 649 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1906)
State v. Hunt
43 S.W. 389 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
State v. Taylor
35 S.W. 92 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
State v. Nocton
26 S.W. 551 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)
State v. Howard
24 S.W. 41 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
Chorn v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad
55 Mo. App. 163 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1893)
State v. Phillips
22 S.W. 1079 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
People v. . McGonegal
32 N.E. 616 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Miller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
41 F. 898 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1890)
State v. Pagels
92 Mo. 300 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 Mo. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burns-mo-1884.