State v. Dillard

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Dillard

42 S.W. 1148, 141 Mo. 265, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 303

DecidedNovember 9, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 42 S.W. 1148 (State v. Dillard) 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. Dillard, 42 S.W. 1148, 141 Mo. 265, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 303 (Mo. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Gantt, P. J.

— At the October term, 1895, of the St. Louis Criminal Court, defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. He was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. ■ The cause was transferred to division number two, and trial was had on the twenty-seventh day of January, 1896, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at fifty years in the penitentiary. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant, and .after being heard and considered by the court was sustained. The cause was thereupon transferred to division number one, and on July 2, 1896, the second trial was had, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and defendant’s punishment was assessed at twenty years in the penitentiary. Defendant again filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Motion in arrest of judgment was also filed and overruled, and an appeal was then taken by the defendant to this court.

[267]*267No leave was given defendant to file a bill of exceptions and none has been filed. There is no error whatever in the record proper and the judgment is affirmed.

Sherwood and Burgess, JJ. concur.

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

Gantt, P. J.

— At the October term, 1895, of the St. Louis Criminal Court, defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. He was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. ■ The cause was transferred to division number two, and trial was had on the twenty-seventh day of January, 1896, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at fifty years in the penitentiary. A motion for a new trial was filed by the defendant, and .after being heard and considered by the court was sustained. The cause was thereupon transferred to division number one, and on July 2, 1896, the second trial was had, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and defendant’s punishment was assessed at twenty years in the penitentiary. Defendant again filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Motion in arrest of judgment was also filed and overruled, and an appeal was then taken by the defendant to this court.

[267]*267No leave was given defendant to file a bill of exceptions and none has been filed. There is no error whatever in the record proper and the judgment is affirmed.

Sherwood and Burgess, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 S.W. 1148, 141 Mo. 265, 1897 Mo. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dillard-mo-1897.