State v. Mikel

102 S.W. 19, 125 Mo. App. 287, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 100
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 6, 1907·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant, .a druggist, was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Boone county [289] on a charge of selling intoxicating liquor in less quantity than three gallons without taking out or having a license as a dramshop keeper or any other legal authority to sell the same. The transcript fails to show that defendant was arraigned or that any plea was made to the indictment. This is a fatal defect. It is just as necessary in misdemeanor as in felony cases that the record should show these facts affirmatively. Until the defendant is arraigned and enters his plea, there are no issues to try or submit to the jury. Without these things being done, there can be no trial, and, as defendant has not been accorded a legal trial, it is immaterial whether or not he made the point in his motion for new trial or in arrest of judgment. It may be raised for the first time in the appellate court. [State v. Sharpe, 95 S. W. 298; State v. Geiger, 45 Mo. App. 111; State v. Haycroft, 49 Mo. App. 488; State v. Hoffman, 70 Mo. App. 271; State v. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234.]

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.

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

State v. Mikel, 102 S.W. 19, 125 Mo. App. 287, 1907 Mo. App. LEXIS 100 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

102 S.W. 19 (State v. Mikel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. O'Kelley
157 S.W. 1055 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1913)
State v. Moss
144 S.W. 1109 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1912)