State v. Roberts

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Roberts

89 S.W. 1134, 191 Mo. 204, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 205

DecidedNovember 21, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.W. 1134 (State v. Roberts) 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. Roberts, 89 S.W. 1134, 191 Mo. 204, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 205 (Mo. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

GANTT, J.

At the adjourned June term, 1903, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, Missouri, the prosecuting attorney of said county filed an information duly verified charging defendant Louis Roberts with burglary by breaking into and entering a building in said county, the property of one T. C. Augustine, on the 5th day of October, 1903. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty, and at the same term he was put upon his trial before a jury and convicted and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary. In due time he filed his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment which were taken up and considered by the court and overruled, and thereupon he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury. At the same term he prayed an appeal which was allowed to this court and he was given leave to file his bill of exceptions during the next term of the court. He filed no bill of exceptions and the record was certified to this court on the 4th of August, 1905. There is nothing before us for review except the record proper and as the information is sufficient and no error appears in the impaneling of the jury or other [205]*205proceedings of the court and the verdict and judgment are in proper form, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Burgess, P. J., and Fox, J., concur.

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

GANTT, J.

At the adjourned June term, 1903, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, Missouri, the prosecuting attorney of said county filed an information duly verified charging defendant Louis Roberts with burglary by breaking into and entering a building in said county, the property of one T. C. Augustine, on the 5th day of October, 1903. The defendant was duly arraigned and entered his plea of not guilty, and at the same term he was put upon his trial before a jury and convicted and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary. In due time he filed his motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment which were taken up and considered by the court and overruled, and thereupon he was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury. At the same term he prayed an appeal which was allowed to this court and he was given leave to file his bill of exceptions during the next term of the court. He filed no bill of exceptions and the record was certified to this court on the 4th of August, 1905. There is nothing before us for review except the record proper and as the information is sufficient and no error appears in the impaneling of the jury or other [205]*205proceedings of the court and the verdict and judgment are in proper form, the judgment must be and is affirmed.

Burgess, P. J., and Fox, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.W. 1134, 191 Mo. 204, 1905 Mo. LEXIS 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberts-mo-1905.