State v. Musick

71 Mo. 401
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedApril 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 71 Mo. 401 (State v. Musick) 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. Musick, 71 Mo. 401 (Mo. 1880).

Opinion

Henry, J.

The defendant was tried and found guilty on the third count of the indictment, which charged him with an assault upon one Hoffstetter and doing him great bodily harm by shooting him with a pistol. Hoffstetter and Jacob Reich both testified positively that defendant shot Hoffstetter. For defendant, Mu'sick, Patton, G-riger, Earn and Rosenthal testified that Musick did not, but that Patton did the shooting, and the only point relied upon by defendant’s attorney for a reversal, is that the verdict of the jury is against the evidence in the case. In the State v. Cook, 58 Mo. 548, this court held that: “ It is only when there is a total absence of evidence, or it fails so completely to support the verdict, that the necessary inference is, that the jury must have acted from prejudice or partiality, that we will attempt to relieve for that reason, even in a criminal case.” Here two witnesses testified positively that the accused shot Hoffstetter. Five witnesses, including the accused and Patton, testified as positively that Patton shot him. The jury, having all the witnesses before them, and being in a situation to observe their demeanor as witnesses, could better determine what credit should be given to their testimony than this court can from the mere perusal of the evidence preserved in the bill of exceptions. There was evidence to support the verdict, and while the preponderance seems to he on the side of the accused, we cannot say that the witnesses who testified for the accused, although outnumbering those who testified against him, are entitled to more credit than the latter. That a number of witnesses testify to a given state of facts exceeding the number who testify to the contrary, does not necessarily constitute a preponderance of evidence. The judgment is affiimed.

All concur.

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

Related

State v. Oertel
217 S.W. 64 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
State v. Faught
124 S.W. 62 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
State v. Rose
44 S.W. 329 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1898)
State v. Schaefer
22 S.W. 447 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
State v. McCoy
20 S.W. 240 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1892)
State v. Orrick
106 Mo. 111 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1891)
State v. Howell
100 Mo. 628 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1890)
State v. Nelson
98 Mo. 414 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1889)
State v. Glahn
97 Mo. 679 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1888)
State v. Lowe
93 Mo. 547 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)
State v. Hall
85 Mo. 669 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)
Brink v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs Railway Co.
17 Mo. App. 177 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
Cannon v. Moore
17 Mo. App. 92 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1885)
State v. Preston
77 Mo. 294 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
State v. Thomas
78 Mo. 327 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1883)
State v. Hammond
77 Mo. 157 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1882)
State v. Powers
10 Or. 145 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1882)
State v. Warner
74 Mo. 83 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)
State v. Baber
74 Mo. 292 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 Mo. 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-musick-mo-1880.