Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

27 Mo. 599

State v. Hopper

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1859

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1859-01-15

<p>1. An indictment, under section 30 of article 8 of the act concerning crimes and punishments (E. C. 1855, p. 630), charging that the defendants unlawfully did disturb a congregation and assembly of people met for religious worship, by wilfully behaving in a rude and indecent manner and using profane discourse within the place of worship of said congregation, is bad; the offence should be charged to have been done wilfully, maliciously or contemptuously.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1961

3 state decisions

10185918601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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.

¶2It was intended to charge the defendants under the 80th section of article 8 of the act concerning crimes and punishments, (R. C. 1855, p. 630,) which declares that “ every person who shall wilfully, maliciously or contemptuously disquiet or disturb any congregation or assembly of people met for religious worship, by making a noise, &c., shall be punished,” &c. The indictment charges that the defendants unlawfully did disturb a congregation and assembly of people met for religious worship by wilfully behaving in a rude and indecent manner, and using profane discourse within the place of worship of said congregation.

¶3The offence defined by the statute is not charged in the indictment ; for the offence does not consist simply in disquieting or disturbing a congregation, but in doing it wilfully, maliciously or contemptuously. Neither the words of the statute descriptive of the offence nor equivalent words are used. (1 Chit. C. L. 281.)

¶4The motion to quash was properly sustained, and the judgment will be affirmed;

Judge Scott concurring. Judge Napton absent.
/27/mo/599 · .json · Public domain