Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

164 Mo. App. 379

State v. Moss

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1912

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1912-03-05

— Hon. Joseph J. Williams, Judge. (1) The court was without jurisdiction to try the cause, there being no transcript on file from the justice. State v. Metzger, 26 Mo. 65; State v. Cowden, 85 Mo. App. 403. (2) Neither the purported transcript of the justice nor the circuit court records show any arraignment or plea of defendant. State v. Llewellyn, 93 Mo. App. 469; State v. Sharpe, 119 Mo. App. 386.

Relies on Smith v. Chapman

Beyersed and remanded · Decided 1912-03-05

¶1CONCUEEING OPINION.

NORTONI, J.

¶2I concur in the result on the ground that a mere voluntary amended transcript filed after verdict is insufficient.

¶3That the original transcript of the justice docket is insufficient and inaccurate is conceded. Such being true, an amended transcript, showing the record and all of its entries, could be filed in the circuit court, and the deficiency in the original thus supplied, by following an orderly course of procedure. As the arraignment was not shown in the original transcript filed under the statute with the appeal, it could only be shown in the circuit court by an amended transcript filed in obedience to a rule on the justice under the authority of the statute in such cases made and provided or by the full and complete record brought up on certiorari. In my opinion, the mere voluntary filing, by the prosecuting attorney, of an alleged amended transcript without regard to the orderly course as to such matters is of no avail. [See Smith v. Chapman, 71 Mo. 217.]

/164/moapp/379 · .json · Public domain