Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 Mo. 434

State v. Levy

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 31, 1894

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1894-01-31

— Hon. Ben E. Turner, Judge.. (1) This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this writ of error, although no motion in arrest of judgment was made in the court below. State v. Fleming, 22 S. W. Eep. 1024; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. loc. cit. 112; State v. Van Matre, 49 Mo. 268; State v. Vaughn, 26 Mo. 29; McGee v. State, 8 Mo. star p. 495; Mathews and Garner cases, 18 Grattan, 989. (2) The. indictment will not support a judgment.

Relies on State v. Meyers · State v. Terry · McGee v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Eeversed · Decided 1894-01-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1963

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

5018941900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sherwood, JV

¶1The defendants, at the October term, 1891, were indicted with one Jackson, under the provisions of section 3826, Revised Statutes, 1889, being charged with attempting to obtain money 1 ‘by means and by use of a cheat and a fraud and a trick, and deception, and fraudulent representation, and a false pretense, and á confidence game.”

¶2Jackson, on the overruling of their joint demurrer, went to trial; but the defendants, Levy and Haight, pleaded guilty and each received a sentence of four years in the penitentiary, where they are at present confined.

¶3I. Peeling aggrieved in law if not in fact as the result of their plea to the many-sided multifarious indictment, they bring error and ask that we review the record. The attorney general contends that defendants having pleaded. guilty, are in no position to question the correctness of the • proceedings which resulted as aforesaid. But this is a mistake. The effect of such a plea only amounts to an admission by record of the truth of whatever is sufficiently alleged in the indictment, and no confession, however large and explicit will prevent a defendant from taking advantage of faults apparent of record. If no crime is charged in the indictment, then none is confessed by pleading guilty thereto. 1 Chitty Cr. Law, pp. 431, 662, 663; Fletcher v. State, 7 Eng. 169; 1 Bishop’s Cr. Proc., sec. 795, and cases cited; Wharton on Cr. Pl. and Prac., [9 Ed.] sec. 413.

¶4*437II. Numerous decisions of this court attest that a party defendant in a criminal ease may take advantage of a material defect apparent of record, though such point be raised for the first time in this court. McGee v. State, 8 Mo. 495; State v. Van Matre, 49 Mo. 268; State v. Vaughn, 26 Mo. 29; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107; 1 Bishop on Cr. Proc., secs. 1368, 1370.

¶5III. The insufficiency of indictments based upon the section of the statute in question has frequently been affirmed by this court. State v. Terry, 109 Mo. 601; State v. Fleming, 117 Mo. 377; State v. Cameron, 117 Mo. 371.

¶6For the reasons given, we reverse the judgment and discharge the defendants.

All concur.
/119/mo/434 · .json · Public domain