Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

232 Mo. 216

State v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 7, 1911

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1911-02-07

— Eon. Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge. (1) The indictment is valid, sufficient and in accordance with the language of the statute, and meets the approval of the opinions of this court in form and substance. State v. Pheland, 65 Mo. 547; State v. Doyle, 107 Mo. 36; State v. Williams, 191 Mo. 205; State v. Harris, 209 Mo. 423.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1923

2 state decisions

Relies on State v. Carson · State v. Fraser

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1911-02-07

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FERRISS, J.

¶1At the March term, 1909, of the circuit court of Platte county, defendant was convicted of a felonious assault with intent to kill, and appeals from the judgment of conviction.

¶2It appears from the record that the verdict was returned and judgment thereon rendered on March 17, 1909, three days prior to the filing of defendant’s motion for a new trial. Section 5285, Revised Statutes *2181909 (R. S. 1899, sec. 2689), provides that the motion for new trial shall be “filed before judgment and within four days after the return of the verdict,” and it has been frequently held by this court that said statutory provision is mandatory. [State v. Fraser, 220 Mo. 34; State v. Pritchett, 219 Mo. l. c. 704; State v. Maddox, 153 Mo. l. c. 473; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. l. c. 596.]

¶3In the recent case of State v. Carson, 231 Mo. 1, Judge Gantt held that where the court pronounced judgment immediately after a finding of guilty, and before a motion for new trial was filed, and where at the time the defendant excepted to the action of the court in so pronouncing judgment and gave notice that he would file his motion for a new trial, there was no waiver by defendant, because he could not have acted more promptly. In the case at bar there was no objection or exception to the action of the court. The motion was filed too late, and we must hold that there is nothing before us save the record proper.

¶4The indictment properly charges the offense of which defendant was convicted, the verdict and the judgment thereon are in due form, and the record in all respects free from error. The judgment, therefore, is affirmed.

Kennish, P. J., and Brown, J., concur.
/232/mo/216 · .json · Public domain