State v. Van Matre

Supreme Court of Missouri

State v. Van Matre

49 Mo. 268

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedJanuary 15, 1872

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 49 Mo. 268 (State v. Van Matre) 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. Van Matre, 49 Mo. 268 (Mo. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a prosecution for assault and battery, commenced before a justice of the peace and taken tó the Common Pleas [270]*270by appeal, where the defendant was tried by a jury of six men and found guilty, and a fine of $50 assessed against him. Final judgment was given on the verdict, and the defendant filed a motion in arrest, alleging as cause for arresting the judgment, that he had been tried by a jury of six men without his consent. This motion was overruled by the court. There was no bill of exceptions.

In criminal cases this court will look into the record, and, if error appears, will reverse the judgment. So also in criminal cases, whatever is good in arrest may be reached by writ of error. (McGee v. The State, 8 Mo. 495.)

It appears from this record that the defendant was tried by a jury of six men. It does not appear that he gave his consent to be tried by six men. Under the constitution of this State, in courts of common-law jurisdiction the defendant in criminal cases has the right to a panel of twelve jurors. So in civil cases, either party in common-law courts has the right to demand a jury of twelve men-. This seems to be the settled law of this State. (See Vaughn v. Scade, 30 Mo. 600; Foster v. Kirby, 31 Mo. 496; Henning v. Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 35 Mo. 408; Brown v. Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 37 Mo. 298; Const. Mo., art. I, §§ 17-8.)

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

The other judges concur.

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

Adams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a prosecution for assault and battery, commenced before a justice of the peace and taken tó the Common Pleas [270]*270by appeal, where the defendant was tried by a jury of six men and found guilty, and a fine of $50 assessed against him. Final judgment was given on the verdict, and the defendant filed a motion in arrest, alleging as cause for arresting the judgment, that he had been tried by a jury of six men without his consent. This motion was overruled by the court. There was no bill of exceptions.

In criminal cases this court will look into the record, and, if error appears, will reverse the judgment. So also in criminal cases, whatever is good in arrest may be reached by writ of error. (McGee v. The State, 8 Mo. 495.)

It appears from this record that the defendant was tried by a jury of six men. It does not appear that he gave his consent to be tried by six men. Under the constitution of this State, in courts of common-law jurisdiction the defendant in criminal cases has the right to a panel of twelve jurors. So in civil cases, either party in common-law courts has the right to demand a jury of twelve men-. This seems to be the settled law of this State. (See Vaughn v. Scade, 30 Mo. 600; Foster v. Kirby, 31 Mo. 496; Henning v. Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 35 Mo. 408; Brown v. Hann. & St. Jo. R.R. Co., 37 Mo. 298; Const. Mo., art. I, §§ 17-8.)

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

The other judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Mo. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-van-matre-mo-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack