State v. Irwin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Irwin

71 S.W. 1015, 171 Mo. 558, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 22

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 71 S.W. 1015 (State v. Irwin) 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. Irwin, 71 S.W. 1015, 171 Mo. 558, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 22 (Mo. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

FOX, J.

On March 21, 1901, the prosecuting attorney of Clark county, Missouri, filed in the office of the circuit clerk of that county, an information charging the defendant with grand larceny. There were two counts in the information,, but at the close of the State’s case, the prosecuting attorney dismissed as to the second count. Appellant filed motion to quash the information, which was by the court overruled. To this ruling of the court there was no exception saved. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty. This cause, after the hearing of the evidence, was submitted to the jury upon the charge contained in the first count. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for á term of two years. Appellant filed his motion for new trial which was by the court overruled.. To this-ruling and action of the court there was at the time no objection or. exception. The court pro[560]*560ceeded to sentence and render judgment upon the verdict entered in this cause. The cause is brought here by appeal.

Upon a careful inspection of this record, we find no objections or exceptions to the action of the court' overruling the motion for a new trial. It is well settled that the errors complained of in this case must be brought to the attention of the trial court in a motion for a new trial, and before the motion can be made any part of the record, there must be proper exceptions to the action of the court in overruling it, made in due time, and the exceptions must be disclosed in the record. [State v. Noeninger, 108 Mo. 166; State v. Reed, 89 Mo. 168; State v. Mitchell, 98 Mo. 657; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316.]

Upon this state of the record there is nothing before this court for review, except the record proper. '

The first count of the information upon which the defendant was tried, while, in form, it does not strictly conform to the approved precedents, yet upon a careful analysis of the terms used in charging the offense, we are of the opinion that all the essential elements of the offense of grand larceny, in pursuance of the provisions of section 1898, Revised Statutes 1899, are properly charged.

No error appearing in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

FOX, J.

On March 21, 1901, the prosecuting attorney of Clark county, Missouri, filed in the office of the circuit clerk of that county, an information charging the defendant with grand larceny. There were two counts in the information,, but at the close of the State’s case, the prosecuting attorney dismissed as to the second count. Appellant filed motion to quash the information, which was by the court overruled. To this ruling of the court there was no exception saved. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty. This cause, after the hearing of the evidence, was submitted to the jury upon the charge contained in the first count. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for á term of two years. Appellant filed his motion for new trial which was by the court overruled.. To this-ruling and action of the court there was at the time no objection or. exception. The court pro[560]*560ceeded to sentence and render judgment upon the verdict entered in this cause. The cause is brought here by appeal.

Upon a careful inspection of this record, we find no objections or exceptions to the action of the court' overruling the motion for a new trial. It is well settled that the errors complained of in this case must be brought to the attention of the trial court in a motion for a new trial, and before the motion can be made any part of the record, there must be proper exceptions to the action of the court in overruling it, made in due time, and the exceptions must be disclosed in the record. [State v. Noeninger, 108 Mo. 166; State v. Reed, 89 Mo. 168; State v. Mitchell, 98 Mo. 657; State v. Harvey, 105 Mo. 316.]

Upon this state of the record there is nothing before this court for review, except the record proper. '

The first count of the information upon which the defendant was tried, while, in form, it does not strictly conform to the approved precedents, yet upon a careful analysis of the terms used in charging the offense, we are of the opinion that all the essential elements of the offense of grand larceny, in pursuance of the provisions of section 1898, Revised Statutes 1899, are properly charged.

No error appearing in the record proper, the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.W. 1015, 171 Mo. 558, 1903 Mo. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-irwin-moctapp-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack