State v. Heflin

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Heflin

89 S.W. 1034, 191 Mo. 178, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 200

DecidedNovember 21, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.W. 1034 (State v. Heflin) 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. Heflin, 89 S.W. 1034, 191 Mo. 178, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 200 (Mo. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

GANTT, J.

At the March term, 1904, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, the defendant, Clarence D. Heflin, was indicted for rape, and afterwards, at the June adjourned term of said court for the year 1904, the defendant was put upon his trial and convicted, and [179]*179Ms sentence assessed at fifty years in the pemtentiary.

His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed, heard and overruled, and thereupon he was sentenced to the penitentiary for fifty years. He was granted an appeal to this court and leave given to file a bill of exceptions at the next term of the court.

He filed no exceptions and the appeal before us must he determined by the record proper. The indictment is sufficient and the arraignment and impaneling of the jury, the verdict and sentence being in due and regular form, we find no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

All concur.

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

GANTT, J.

At the March term, 1904, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, the defendant, Clarence D. Heflin, was indicted for rape, and afterwards, at the June adjourned term of said court for the year 1904, the defendant was put upon his trial and convicted, and [179]*179Ms sentence assessed at fifty years in the pemtentiary.

His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed, heard and overruled, and thereupon he was sentenced to the penitentiary for fifty years. He was granted an appeal to this court and leave given to file a bill of exceptions at the next term of the court.

He filed no exceptions and the appeal before us must he determined by the record proper. The indictment is sufficient and the arraignment and impaneling of the jury, the verdict and sentence being in due and regular form, we find no error in the record, and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W. 1034, 191 Mo. 178, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heflin-mo-1905.