State v. Worrell

25 Mo. 205
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedMarch 15, 1857
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 25 Mo. 205 (State v. Worrell) 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. Worrell, 25 Mo. 205 (Mo. 1857).

Opinion

Ryland, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, Edward D. Worrell, was indicted with William H. Bruff for the murder of Bazil H. Gordon, at the May term of the Circuit Court of Warren county, A. D. 1856. The defendants were arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the indictment, and on their petition the venue was changed from the Circuit Court of Warren county to the Circuit Court of Franklin county — the petitioners alleging, in their application for the change, that they believed the inhabitants of the entire judicial circuit (of which Warren county composed a part) are so prejudiced against the defendants that a fair trial can not be had in the same. At the September term of the Franklin Circuit Court, A. D. 1856, the case was called and the trial was postponed to a special adjourned term of said court, to be held on the 19th day of January, A. D. 1857. At the special adjourned term of said Franklin Circuit Court, held on the 19th day of January, 1857, the parties appeared — the defendants had severed in their trials — and the defendant, Worrell, moved for a continuance of the cause; filed his own and other affidavits in support of his motion, which motion being overruled he saved the point by his bill of exceptions. A trial was then had, [207]*207and the defendant was found guilty of murder in tire first degree. He moved for a new trial, assigning among other causes that the court had improperly overruled his motion for a continuance. The court overruled the motion for a new trial; the defendant excepted, and saved the point. He also moved in arrest of judgment for the reasons that, 1st, the court had no jurisdiction of the cause; 2d, the indictment was insufficient to sustain judgment; 3d, because the judgment is for the wrong party. This motion being also overruled, he excepted and saved the point by his bill of exceptions. He thereupon prayed for an appeal to this court, which was granted, and the execution of the sentence was ordered to be stayed until the judgment of this court be had in the case.

The counsel for the prisoner relies upon the following points for a reversal of the judgment in this case. 1st. That the Franklin Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, the order of removal by the Warren Circuit Court being illegal and insufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the latter court. 2d. The court erred in overruling the application for a continuance and in forcing the defendant to trial. 3d. Yariance between the murder as charged in the indictment, and the murder (if any) made out in the proof. 4th. The court erred in refusing the instruction asked by defendant. 5th. The evidence, being purely circumstantial, was not legally sufficient to establish the crime charged, and that this is a question for this court.

We have carefully examined the questions raised by the several points relied on by the counsel, and will state the re-suit of our conclusions in regard thereto; not in the order as presented by the counsel and here laid down, but nevertheless we shall notice the various propositions in our own way. We begin with the first proposition, the change of venue. By our statute concerning “Practice in Criminal Cases,” (art. 5,) the change of venue in such cases is regulated. It may not be improper here to cite several of the sections of this article. “ Sec. 15. Whenever any indictment or prose[208]*208cution for a criminal offence shall be pending in any court against the judge thereof, the same shall be removed to the Circuit Court of some county in a different circuit upon the order in writing of the circuit attorney prosecuting for the circuit, or upon the order of any judge of the Supreme Court. Sec. 16. When any indictment or criminal prosecution shall be pending in any circuit court, the same shall be removed by the order of such court, or the judge thereof, to the circuit court of some county in a different circuit, in either of the following cases: 1st, when the judge of the court in which the cause is ponding is near of kin to the defendant by blood or marriage; or, 2d, where the defendant is a slave, and such judge, or a person near of kin to him, is the owner or has any interest in such slave.; or, 3d, where the offence charged is alleged to have been committed against the person or property of such judge, or some person near of kin to him; or, 4th, where the judge is in anywise interested or prejudiced, or shall have been counsel in the cause. Sec. 17. Any criminal cause pending in any circuit court may be removed by the order of such court, or the judge thereof, to the circuit court of another county in the same circuit, whenever it shall appear in the manner hereinafter provided that the minds of the inhabitants of the county in which the cause is pending are so prejudiced against the defendant that a fair trial can not be had therein. Sec. 18. Whenever it shall appear in the manner hereinafter provided that the inhabitants of the entire circuit are so prejudiced against the defendant that a fair trial can not be had therein, the cause shall, by order of the court or judge, be removed to another circuit, in which such prejudice is not alleged to exist. Sec. 19. Such order of removal, as specified in the two preceding sections, shall be made on the application of the defendant; or where the defendant is under the age of sixteen, or is a slave, on the application of such slave, or of the owner, &c. Sec. 20. The petition of the appellant for a change of venue shali. set forth the facts, and the truth of the allegations shall be supported by the affidavit of the defendant, or some credible [209]*209disinterested person, &c. Sec. 21. "Whenever it shall be within the knowledge of a court or judge that facts exist which would entitle a defendant to the removal of any criminal cause on his application, such court or judge may make an order for such removal, without any application by the party for that purpose. Sec. 22. Every order for the removal of any cause, under the foregoing provisions, shall state whether the same is made on the application of the party, or on facts within the knowledge of the court or judge, and shall specify the cause of removal, and designate the county to which the cause is removed.” “ Sec. 25. Every order for the removal of a cause, if made in term, shall be entered on the minutes ; if made by an officer out of court, shall be in. writing, and signed by such officer, and shall be filed by the clerk with the petition (if any) as a part of the record in the cause.” “ Sec. 31. Whenever any order shall be made for the removal of any cause, under the foregoing provisions, the clerk of the court in which the same is pending shall make out a full transcript of the record and proceedings in the cause, including the order of removal, the petition therefor (if any), and the recognizance of the defendant, and of all witnesses, and shall transmit the same, duly certified under the seal of the court, to the clerk of the court to which the removal is ordered. Sec. 32. On the receipt of such transcript by the clerk of the court to which any cause is removed, he shall file the same as a record of his court, and the same proceedings shall be had in the cause in such court in the same manner and in all respects as if the same had originated therein.”

The record before us shows the following petition filed by the defendants for a change of venue:

“ State of Missouri v. Edward D. Worrell and Wiliam H. Bruff. Indictment for murder. Warren Circuit Court — Spring term, 1856. Edward D. Worrell and William H.

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

Related

Nifong v. Texas Empire Pipe Line Co.
40 S.W.2d 522 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1931)
Moore v. State
59 Fla. 23 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1910)
State v. Olds
116 S.W. 1080 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1909)
State v. Manning
87 Mo. App. 78 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)
State v. Kindred
49 S.W. 845 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Mo. 205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-worrell-mo-1857.