State v. Campbell

22 S.W. 367, 115 Mo. 391, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 59
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMay 2, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 22 S.W. 367 (State v. Campbell) 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. Campbell, 22 S.W. 367, 115 Mo. 391, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 59 (Mo. 1893).

Opinion

Shebwood, J.

Indicted under the provisions of section 3535, Revised Statutes, 1889, for stealing the cow of Valentine Rogers, in Barry county, the defendant on her change of venue to Newton county was convicted of the theft, and, sentence having been passed upon and judgment entered against her, she appeals to this court.

I. Complaint is made that the two instructions given at the instance of the state are erroneous; but we cannot notice the instructions because they have not been incorporated in the bill of exceptions, nor does the bill of exceptions contain a direction to the clerk to copy the same, etc. State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. loc. cit. 674.

II. Complaint is also made that a new trial should have been granted because of newly discovered evidence ; but we are not of this opinion. The affidavits .disclose no diligence, nor that the new evidence is so material as would be likely to change the result were a new trial granted. Nor does it appear that such evidence is not cumulative. State v. Welsor, 21 S. W. Rep. 443, and cases cited.

III. Moreover, the motion for a new trial was not accompanied by the affidavit of the defendant, as it should have been. 3 Graham & Waterman on New Trials, pp. 1067, 1071, 1073; State v. McLaughlin, 27 Mo. 111.

IV. The testimony in this cause, consisting as it did in part of damaging admissions of the defendant as well as much other testimony, was amply sufficient. There was some testimony to the contrary, but to the jury belonged the right and authority to determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant, and we are not authorized to disturb the verdict. Therefore .judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Gordon v. State
97 So. 428 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
State v. Flutcher
66 S.W. 429 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Cooper v. Maloney
63 S.W. 372 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1901)
State v. Nettles
55 S.W. 70 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)
Draper v. Taylor
79 N.W. 709 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1899)
James v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
49 S.W. 978 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)
State v. Lucas
47 S.W. 1067 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Moses
40 S.W. 883 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)
State v. Laycock
37 S.W. 802 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1896)
State v. Stewart
29 S.W. 986 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
State v. Beard
29 S.W. 592 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1895)
State v. Fischer
27 S.W. 1109 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 S.W. 367, 115 Mo. 391, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-mo-1893.