State v. Pitts

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Pitts

70 Mo. App. 446, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 304

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 Mo. App. 446 (State v. Pitts) 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. Pitts, 70 Mo. App. 446, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 304 (Mo. Ct. App. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Biggs, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of an assault on a child. The information was filed in the St. Louis court of criminal correction. It was signed by the prosecuting attorney and was supported by the affidavit of a competent witness. The defendant moved to quash it, upon the ground that the subscribing witness had no personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. On the hearing of the motion the court permitted the defendant to introduce evidence which tended to show that the witness did not see the defendant commit the assault, and that his only knowledge of it was the admission of the defendant that he had whipped the child. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.

s”rforaat£i.of The information was filed in a court of record, and hence is governed by section 4057 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. That section provides, that all informations shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney, and shall be verified by his oath, or by the oath of some person competent to testify as a witness in the case, or be supported by the affidavit of such person. In the impeachment of such an information it might probably be shown that the person who made the affidavit is not a competent witness, or that his signature was a forgery. The case of State v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220, would seem to authorize this. There it was held competent to show that an indictment was found without hearing any evidence. In the case at bar the defendant attempted to show that the information was based on insufficient evidence, which the supreme court in the Grady case, supra, expressly decided could not be done. We, therefore, hold that the [448]*448motion to quash the information was properly overruled.

No objection is made to the form or sufficiency of the information in other respects. The evidence'taken at the trial is not contained in the transcript. The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

All the judges concur.

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

Biggs, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of an assault on a child. The information was filed in the St. Louis court of criminal correction. It was signed by the prosecuting attorney and was supported by the affidavit of a competent witness. The defendant moved to quash it, upon the ground that the subscribing witness had no personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. On the hearing of the motion the court permitted the defendant to introduce evidence which tended to show that the witness did not see the defendant commit the assault, and that his only knowledge of it was the admission of the defendant that he had whipped the child. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.

s”rforaat£i.of The information was filed in a court of record, and hence is governed by section 4057 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. That section provides, that all informations shall be signed by the prosecuting attorney, and shall be verified by his oath, or by the oath of some person competent to testify as a witness in the case, or be supported by the affidavit of such person. In the impeachment of such an information it might probably be shown that the person who made the affidavit is not a competent witness, or that his signature was a forgery. The case of State v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220, would seem to authorize this. There it was held competent to show that an indictment was found without hearing any evidence. In the case at bar the defendant attempted to show that the information was based on insufficient evidence, which the supreme court in the Grady case, supra, expressly decided could not be done. We, therefore, hold that the [448]*448motion to quash the information was properly overruled.

No objection is made to the form or sufficiency of the information in other respects. The evidence'taken at the trial is not contained in the transcript. The judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

All the judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 Mo. App. 446, 1897 Mo. App. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pitts-moctapp-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack