State v. Stonum

62 Mo. 596
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided May 15, 1876·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was convicted of petit larceny, and the only point now relied upon in this court is, that no instructions were given by the court. In the State vs. Mathews (20 Mo., 55) it was expressly adjudged, that it is the duty of the court in all criminal cases to instruct the jury, as to the law; that if the instructions offered are objectionable, the court should proceed to give such as the law requires. Aside from this being binding authority, we think it is sustained by good reason. Juries should not be allowed to guess at the law in such cases. The court should instruct them as to their duties and as to the law in the case. Reversed and remanded. All the judges concur, except Judge'Vories, who is absent.

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

State v. Stonum, 62 Mo. 596 (Mo. 1876).

62 Mo. 596 (State v. Stonum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Chaney
349 S.W.2d 238 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1961)
State v. Lewkowitz
178 S.W. 58 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1915)
State v. Starr
148 S.W. 862 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State v. Conway
145 S.W. 441 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1912)
State v. Murphy
25 S.W. 95 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1893)
State v. Smith
37 Mo. App. 137 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1889)
State v. Brooks
92 Mo. 542 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1887)
State v. Anderson
86 Mo. 309 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1885)