State v. Melton

23 S.W. 889, 117 Mo. 618, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 378
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedNovember 9, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 23 S.W. 889 (State v. Melton) 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. Melton, 23 S.W. 889, 117 Mo. 618, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 378 (Mo. 1893).

Opinion

Oantt, P. J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of an assault with intent, to rape, in the circuit, court of Newton county, and his punishment assessed at six months in the county jail. He was indicted under section 3490, Revised Statutes, 1889. His appeal was taken to the St. Louis court of appeals, but that court, not having jurirdiction of “cases of felony” (section 12, art. 6, constitution of Missouri, 1875, and section 5 of amendment thereto adopted in November, 1884), certified the appeal to this court.

I. The crime charged is a felony, as the offense denounced by the statute may be pimished by imprison[620]*620mentin the penitentiary. The fact that less punishment than imprisonment in the penitentiary was assessed in this case, does not reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. State v. Deffenbacher, 51 Mo. 26; State v. Green, 66 Mo. 631; State v. Clayton, 100 Mo. 516; State v. Gilmore, 28 Mo. App. 561.

II. We have fully examined this record and the brief of counsel for. appellant, and we find no complaint in the motion for new trial, or elsewhere, of the instructions given by. the court; nor is it claimed that the court did not fully instruct upon all questions of law. No exceptions to evidence have been saved. Defendant simply asks that we hold that he demonstrated his innocence.. In this, he evidently overlooks the fact that this is an appellate court and it is not our province to usurp the functions of the jury. They heprd his evidence and found against him, and, as there was evidence from which they might so find, if they believed it, we have no right to interfere, on this ground alone. The judgment is affirmed.

All of this division concur.

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

Related

State v. Coor
740 S.W.2d 350 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
Wynes v. State
468 S.W.2d 7 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)
State v. Plassard
195 S.W.2d 495 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1946)
State v. Atlas
244 P. 477 (Montana Supreme Court, 1926)
Seaman v. State
106 Ohio St. (N.S.) 177 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1922)
State v. Siegel
177 S.W. 353 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
State v. Sparks
166 S.W. 642 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1914)
State v. Woodson
154 S.W. 705 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1913)
McKelvy v. State
87 Ohio St. (N.S.) 1 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1912)
State v. McGovern
139 S.W. 231 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
State v. Herrick
139 S.W. 258 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
State v. Wilson
126 S.W. 996 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
State ex rel. Sanks v. Johnson
121 S.W. 780 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1909)
State ex rel. Butler v. Foster
86 S.W. 245 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1905)
State v. Greenspan
38 S.W. 582 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
23 S.W. 889, 117 Mo. 618, 1893 Mo. LEXIS 378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-melton-mo-1893.