105 Mo. 318
Decided April 15, 1891
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1891-04-15
<p>Criminal Practice: evidence : declarations of codefendant. Declarations made by a defendant subsequent to the commission of the common criminal act, tending to prove complicity on the part of a codefendant, are inadmissible against the latter.</p>
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1906
5 state decisions
Relies on State v. Melrose
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed and remanded · Decided 1891-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Defendant was jointly indicted with. Henry T. Melrose and James Parris for the larceny of a steer. On the trial witnesses were permitted to detail in evidence, over defendant’s objection, declarations made by Farris, subsequent to the common criminal enterprise, which tended to prove defendant’s complicity in the crime. Under the authority of State v. Melrose, 98 Mo. 594, the admission of these declarations was error.
¶2Judgment reversed and cause remanded.