Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

117 Mo. 639

State v. Chapel

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided November 9, 1893

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1893-11-09

— J. C. Lampson, Judge. (1) The indictment does not state of what the cheat, the .fraud, the trick, the deception, the false and fraudulent representations and the bogus instrument of writing consisted, and does not furnish the accused the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is a sacred right of the accused that he may know from the indictment of what he is charged and be prepared to meet the exact charge presented against him.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1909

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Terry · State v. Benson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1893-11-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Shebwood, J.

¶1The charging portion of the indictment under which the defendant was tried and convicted is as follows: “That, on or about the twenty-eighth day of September, 1892, at the county of Newton and state "of Missouri, one, Marius Chapel, did then and there unlawful and feloniously, with intent to *641cheat and defraud, obtain from Frank Featherstun $14.60, lawful money of the United States of the value of $14.60 — the money of Frank Featherstun — by means and by use of a cheat, a fraud, a trick, a deception, a false and fraudulent representation and statement and false pretense, a bogus written instrument, contrary to the form of the statutes and against the peace and dignity of the state.”

¶2Under the ruling of this court in State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601; State v. Benson, 110 Mo. 18; State v. Cameron, ante, p. 371; State v. Fleming, ante, p. 377; the indictment in this cause is wholly insufficient in the particulars in those cases specified, and therefore judgment reversed and defendant discharged.

All concur.
/117/mo/639 · .json · Public domain