State v. Hunt

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Hunt

91 Mo. 491

DecidedOctober 15, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 91 Mo. 491 (State v. Hunt) 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. Hunt, 91 Mo. 491 (Mo. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Black, J.

Peter Hunt, Moses Hunt, and one Year-gin were jointly indicted for burglary and larceny. The state dismissed as to Yeargin, and, for the purpose of a trial, there was a severance as to the other defendants. On the trial of Peter Hunt, he called Moses as a witness. The state objected, on the ground that the proposed witness was jointly indicted with Peter Hunt, for the same offence, and had been convicted, which objection was sustained, and the witness excluded.

Before our present statute, permitting defendants in criminal cases to testify, one of two or more persons jointly indicted could not be a witness for the other, even on a separate trial. State v. Roberts, 15 Mo. 29; State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. 675. Though two were jointly indicted, if one, on a separate trial, was convicted or acquitted, he could not be a witness for the other. State v. Stoots, 26 Mo. 307. Where the cause as to one defendant is disposed of by a plea of guilty, or a verdict of conviction or acquittal, then he may be a witness for the other. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc., sec. 1020; Whar. Crim. Evid., sec. 445. Moses Hunt was, then, a competent witness, without regard to section 1918, Revised Statutes.

The record shows that other exceptions were taken on the trial, but they are without merit. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

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

Black, J.

Peter Hunt, Moses Hunt, and one Year-gin were jointly indicted for burglary and larceny. The state dismissed as to Yeargin, and, for the purpose of a trial, there was a severance as to the other defendants. On the trial of Peter Hunt, he called Moses as a witness. The state objected, on the ground that the proposed witness was jointly indicted with Peter Hunt, for the same offence, and had been convicted, which objection was sustained, and the witness excluded.

Before our present statute, permitting defendants in criminal cases to testify, one of two or more persons jointly indicted could not be a witness for the other, even on a separate trial. State v. Roberts, 15 Mo. 29; State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. 675. Though two were jointly indicted, if one, on a separate trial, was convicted or acquitted, he could not be a witness for the other. State v. Stoots, 26 Mo. 307. Where the cause as to one defendant is disposed of by a plea of guilty, or a verdict of conviction or acquittal, then he may be a witness for the other. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc., sec. 1020; Whar. Crim. Evid., sec. 445. Moses Hunt was, then, a competent witness, without regard to section 1918, Revised Statutes.

The record shows that other exceptions were taken on the trial, but they are without merit. Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 Mo. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hunt-mo-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack