Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

209 Mo. 397

State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 18, 1908

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1908-02-18

<p>BILL OF EXCEPTIONS: Filed Out of Time: Motion for New Trial. Where defendant files a motion for new trial, which is continued, to the next term and overruled, and no hill of exceptions is filed at the term during which the motion for new trial is overruled, and no leave is asked or obtained to file the hill of exceptions in vacation or at the next term, a bill filed at such subsequent term cannot he considered.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1909

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Larew · State v. Miller · State v. Goehler

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Afeikmed · Decided 1908-02-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

GANTT, J.

¶1This is an appeal from a sentence of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis.

¶2The defendant was prosecuted by information, duly verified, filed by the circuit attorney of said city. She was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty. A trial was had on April 10,1906, and resulted in her conviction and sentence to the penitentiary.

¶3The information charged the defendant with the larceny of seventy-five dollars from the person of one Reuthinger in the nighttime. After the verdict of guilty defendant filed her motion for a new trial, which was continued to the next term. At the next term the motion was overruled and she then filed a motion in arrest, which was continued to the next term. No bill of exceptions was filed at the term during which the motion for new trial was overruled, nor was leave asked or obtained to file a bill of exceptions in vacation or *399at the next term. In this state of the record the Attorney-General insists that all matters of exception are foreclosed, and that there is nothing before us except the record proper, and we think there is no avoidance of this contention. Such was,our ruling in State v. Miller, 189 Mo. 673, and in State v. Larew, 191 Mo. 192, we reviewed all the decisions of this court and reaffirmed the Miller case. Since then the same question has received the same answer in State v. Goehler, 193 Mo. 177, and State v. Harroun, 199 Mo. 258. It necessarily follows that there is nothing before us for consideration save the record proper, and there'is no irregularity or error in that, and the judgment must he and is affirmed.

Fox, P. J., and Burgess, J., concur.
/209/mo/397 · .json · Public domain