Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Mo. 306

State v. Stumbo

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1858

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1858-01-15

This was an indictment for selling liquor without a license. It was not stated in the indictment when the alleged offence was committed. I. The indictment is bad. A new trial should have been granted.

Relies on State v. Larrimore · Beauchamp v. Sconce

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1971

10 state decisions

301858186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Richardson, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The only objection to the indictment is that it omits to state the year in which the offence was committed. This objection is disposed of by the 27th section of article 4 of the act regulating proceedings in criminal cases, (R. C. 1855, p. 1176,) which declares that no indictment shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other "proceedings thereon be stayed, arrested, or in any manner affected, “ for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence.”

¶3Evidence had been given by the defendant, on the trial, of the same kind and to the same point as that stated in the motion and affidavit to have been discovered after the trial. It was then merely cumulative and was not sufficient to authorize a new trial. (Beauchamp v. Seance, 12 Mo. 57; State v. Larimore, 20 Mo. 425.)

¶4With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment will be affirmed.

/26/mo/306 · .json · Public domain