State v. Hackman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hackman

545 S.W.2d 91, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2687

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1976

DocketNo. 10485

StatusPublished

This text of 545 S.W.2d 91 (State v. Hackman) 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. Hackman, 545 S.W.2d 91, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2687 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

A Howell County jury found defendant Ervin Hackman, Jr. guilty of felonious assault without malice. On July 5, 1976, defendant filed a “motion to set aside judgment or motion for new trial.” Thereafter, Special Judge James T. Riley entered an order on September 13, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for new trial in accordance with paragraph No. 22 of said after-trial motion which alleged that the court erred in allowing a state’s witness, a highway patrolman, to guard the jury during the trial.

The state’s right to appeal the outcome of criminal prosecutions is limited to those grounds specified in Rule 28.04. The trial court’s order granting defendant a new trial did not deal with the sufficiency of an information or an indictment [Rule 28.04(a)] and did not arrest or set aside a judgment. Rules 27.22 and 28.04(b).

The order of the circuit court is not ap-pealable and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal tendered by the state. State v. Ulmer, 351 S.W.2d 7, 10[2] (Mo.1961). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BILLINGS, C. J., and HOGAN, TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ., concur.

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

STONE, Judge.

A Howell County jury found defendant Ervin Hackman, Jr. guilty of felonious assault without malice. On July 5, 1976, defendant filed a “motion to set aside judgment or motion for new trial.” Thereafter, Special Judge James T. Riley entered an order on September 13, 1976, which granted defendant’s motion for new trial in accordance with paragraph No. 22 of said after-trial motion which alleged that the court erred in allowing a state’s witness, a highway patrolman, to guard the jury during the trial.

The state’s right to appeal the outcome of criminal prosecutions is limited to those grounds specified in Rule 28.04. The trial court’s order granting defendant a new trial did not deal with the sufficiency of an information or an indictment [Rule 28.04(a)] and did not arrest or set aside a judgment. Rules 27.22 and 28.04(b).

The order of the circuit court is not ap-pealable and this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal tendered by the state. State v. Ulmer, 351 S.W.2d 7, 10[2] (Mo.1961). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BILLINGS, C. J., and HOGAN, TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 S.W.2d 91, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hackman-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack