State v. Heinze

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Heinze

66 Mo. App. 135, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 26

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 66 Mo. App. 135 (State v. Heinze) 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. Heinze, 66 Mo. App. 135, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 26 (Mo. Ct. App. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Gill, J.

The defendant was tried and found guilty of selling intoxicating liquors without procuring license as a dramshop keeper; and from a judgment imposing a fine of $40 he has appealed to this court.

It is complained that the trial court failed to instruct the jury to the effect that the defendant was presumed innocent until proof of guilt be established. We think there is no merit in this point. It is true— •and it has been repeatedly decided in this state — that in criminal cases the trial court should give correct instructions on every substantial issue in the case, whether such instructions be asked or not. State v. Kolb, 48 Mo. App. 269, and cases cited. In this case the court did not declare, in so many words, that the •defendant was presumed innocent and that it was incumbent on plaintiff to overthrow this presumption, yet, at the request of the defendant the jury was told: “That it is required by the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did sell liquor as . charged, that he took money for the same, and that if the jury believe that the state did not prove the same, they must find the defendant not guilty.” This was sufficient and the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to give an instruction on his presumed innocence.

On an examination of the record, we find ample •evidence to sustain the verdict. The appeal is without merit and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

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

Gill, J.

The defendant was tried and found guilty of selling intoxicating liquors without procuring license as a dramshop keeper; and from a judgment imposing a fine of $40 he has appealed to this court.

It is complained that the trial court failed to instruct the jury to the effect that the defendant was presumed innocent until proof of guilt be established. We think there is no merit in this point. It is true— •and it has been repeatedly decided in this state — that in criminal cases the trial court should give correct instructions on every substantial issue in the case, whether such instructions be asked or not. State v. Kolb, 48 Mo. App. 269, and cases cited. In this case the court did not declare, in so many words, that the •defendant was presumed innocent and that it was incumbent on plaintiff to overthrow this presumption, yet, at the request of the defendant the jury was told: “That it is required by the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did sell liquor as . charged, that he took money for the same, and that if the jury believe that the state did not prove the same, they must find the defendant not guilty.” This was sufficient and the defendant was not prejudiced by the failure to give an instruction on his presumed innocence.

On an examination of the record, we find ample •evidence to sustain the verdict. The appeal is without merit and the judgment will be affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Mo. App. 135, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heinze-moctapp-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack