State v. Good

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Good

46 Mo. App. 515, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 384

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 Mo. App. 515 (State v. Good) 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. Good, 46 Mo. App. 515, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 384 (Mo. Ct. App. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Gill, J.

Defendant was indicted for abandoning and failing, neglecting and refusing to support his wife and infant child. On a trial before jury he was convicted, and his punishment fixed at six months’ imprisonment in the county jail and afine of $500, as provided for in section 8501, Revised Statutes, 1889. The defendant appealed.

A review of this record forces us to conclude that defendant did not have that fair and impartial trial to which he is entitled under the law. In the course of the trial, and in the presence of the jury, the state was, over defendant’s objections, allowed repeatedly to advise the jury that defendant had on a prior occasion been indicted for seduction under promise of marriage, etc. Such matter had nothing to do with the offense here charged, was foreign to the issues made, and its introduction only tended to prejudice the jury.' Wharton’s Crim. PI. & Pr., sec. 560; 1 Thompson on Trials, secs. 263, etc.; State v. Wonderly, 17 Mo. App. 597.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Gill, J.

Defendant was indicted for abandoning and failing, neglecting and refusing to support his wife and infant child. On a trial before jury he was convicted, and his punishment fixed at six months’ imprisonment in the county jail and afine of $500, as provided for in section 8501, Revised Statutes, 1889. The defendant appealed.

A review of this record forces us to conclude that defendant did not have that fair and impartial trial to which he is entitled under the law. In the course of the trial, and in the presence of the jury, the state was, over defendant’s objections, allowed repeatedly to advise the jury that defendant had on a prior occasion been indicted for seduction under promise of marriage, etc. Such matter had nothing to do with the offense here charged, was foreign to the issues made, and its introduction only tended to prejudice the jury.' Wharton’s Crim. PI. & Pr., sec. 560; 1 Thompson on Trials, secs. 263, etc.; State v. Wonderly, 17 Mo. App. 597.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Mo. App. 515, 1891 Mo. App. LEXIS 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-good-moctapp-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack