Home/Supreme Court of Missouri/State v. Ervin

State v. Ervin

130 S.W.2d 580, 344 Mo. 1029, 1939 Mo. LEXIS 457
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJuly 7, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 S.W.2d 580 (State v. Ervin) 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. Ervin, 130 S.W.2d 580, 344 Mo. 1029, 1939 Mo. LEXIS 457 (Mo. 1939).

Opinion

*1030 LEEDY, J.

Appellant, Lloyd Ervin, and four others, were jointly charged by information with the crime of murder in the first degree, in having killed one Fred Fulkerson, at the County of Stoddard, on or about the 26th day of July, 1936. A severance was ordered, and appellant was tried separately in the Circuit Court of Dunklin County, to which the cause was awarded on change of venue. He was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a term of eight years in the penitentiary, and he appeals.

Our attention has not been called to a case in which there were more deficiencies, imperfections and irregularities in the matter of perfecting and submitting an appeal than in the case at bar. These need not be detailed, but in view of the disposition.being made of the case, and the reason therefor, it is said merely in passing. At the time of the oral argument, no certified copy of the bill of exceptions had been filed, and for that reason respondent’s brief was limited to the record proper. However, by agreement of counsel, appellant was permitted to file on that day what purported to be a copy of the bill of exceptions, and respondent was granted additional time in which to brief the case on the merits. The principal points relied on in oral argument were: (1) That error was committed in overruling appellant’s application for a continuance; (2) in the giving of Instructions No. 16 and No. 17 on the part of the State.

Appellant assails said instructions “because they are so lined and interlined and marginal written as to be nondecipherable and unintelligible by the average juryman, and they do not properly declare the law of self-defense, if they could be read.” That the point may be more readily understood, we reproduce and set forth below photostatic copies of the instructions complained of, as follows:

*1031

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

Related

State v. Payne
452 S.W.2d 805 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1970)
Meschew v. State
1953 OK CR 165 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1953)
State v. Perry
233 S.W.2d 717 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 S.W.2d 580, 344 Mo. 1029, 1939 Mo. LEXIS 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ervin-mo-1939.