State v. Groce

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Groce

100 S.W. 1197, 201 Mo. 573, 1907 Mo. LEXIS 351

DecidedMarch 5, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.W. 1197 (State v. Groce) 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. Groce, 100 S.W. 1197, 201 Mo. 573, 1907 Mo. LEXIS 351 (Mo. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

BURGESS, J.

The defendant in this case and one Julia Cole were charged jointly with stealing one hundred and thirty dollars from one Cynthia Groce. The prosecution was under an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Howell county, where the larceny is alleged to have occurred. A severance was had, and the defendant was tried at the December term, 1905, of the circuit court of said county, was convicted and his punishment fixed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. In due time defendant filed motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he appeals.

Without setting forth the facts in detail, because it would serve no useful purpose to do so, it is sufficient to say that, the evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond the peradventure of a doubt. While the defendant is not represented in this court, we have carefully examined the record as to the points raised in the motion of defendant for a new trial, and find, the latter without merit.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.

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

BURGESS, J.

The defendant in this case and one Julia Cole were charged jointly with stealing one hundred and thirty dollars from one Cynthia Groce. The prosecution was under an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Howell county, where the larceny is alleged to have occurred. A severance was had, and the defendant was tried at the December term, 1905, of the circuit court of said county, was convicted and his punishment fixed at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary. In due time defendant filed motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he appeals.

Without setting forth the facts in detail, because it would serve no useful purpose to do so, it is sufficient to say that, the evidence established defendant’s guilt beyond the peradventure of a doubt. While the defendant is not represented in this court, we have carefully examined the record as to the points raised in the motion of defendant for a new trial, and find, the latter without merit.

The judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.W. 1197, 201 Mo. 573, 1907 Mo. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-groce-mo-1907.