State v. Doerries

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Doerries

153 S.W. 1062, 168 Mo. App. 324, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 540

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 153 S.W. 1062 (State v. Doerries) 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. Doerries, 153 S.W. 1062, 168 Mo. App. 324, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

ELLISON, J.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of the offense of disturbing the peace. He appealed to this court and we transferred it to the Supreme Court on account of a constitutional question. That court thought the question not properly raised and returned the record to this court.

A change of venue was asked in the trial court on account of alleged prejudice of the judge. The change was granted and another judge called in. The judge to whom the application was made delivered a'lengthy address, in the presence of the jury, on the evil practice of applications for change of venae. The exceedingly, spirited character of the criticism was such as naturally to prejudice the jury. Doubtless the privilege of a change of venue, intended as it is for a just [325]*325and beneficent purpose, is frequently abused. But the time of the criticism objected to was unfortunate. We passed upon an identical question in an opinion by Judge Johnson in which it was held to be prejudicial. [State v. Wright, 161 Mo. App. 597.]

It seems the indictment was lost and the trial is supposed to have proceeded upon one supplied. Unlike the case of State v. Walker, 167 Mo. Í. c. 369, we cannot presume anything in this case, for the record sets out all that was done, and it does not appear that any motion for supplying.a lost record was filed, or that any judgment or order for supplying it was made. Such judgment was necessary to supply the indictment. [State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363; State v. Wilson, 200 Mo. l. c. 28.]

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.

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

ELLISON, J.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of the offense of disturbing the peace. He appealed to this court and we transferred it to the Supreme Court on account of a constitutional question. That court thought the question not properly raised and returned the record to this court.

A change of venue was asked in the trial court on account of alleged prejudice of the judge. The change was granted and another judge called in. The judge to whom the application was made delivered a'lengthy address, in the presence of the jury, on the evil practice of applications for change of venae. The exceedingly, spirited character of the criticism was such as naturally to prejudice the jury. Doubtless the privilege of a change of venue, intended as it is for a just [325]*325and beneficent purpose, is frequently abused. But the time of the criticism objected to was unfortunate. We passed upon an identical question in an opinion by Judge Johnson in which it was held to be prejudicial. [State v. Wright, 161 Mo. App. 597.]

It seems the indictment was lost and the trial is supposed to have proceeded upon one supplied. Unlike the case of State v. Walker, 167 Mo. Í. c. 369, we cannot presume anything in this case, for the record sets out all that was done, and it does not appear that any motion for supplying.a lost record was filed, or that any judgment or order for supplying it was made. Such judgment was necessary to supply the indictment. [State v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363; State v. Wilson, 200 Mo. l. c. 28.]

The judgment is reversed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.W. 1062, 168 Mo. App. 324, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-doerries-moctapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack