Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

34 Mo. 347

State v. Harris

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided January 15, 1864

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1864-01-15

<p>Crimes — Felonious Assault. — In an indictment for a felonious assault under sec. 35, p. 565, R. C. 1855, the omission to state in the indictment that the assault was made on purpose, and of malice aforethought, is a fatal defect for which the judgment should be arrested.</p>

Relies on State v. Comfort

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1980

4 state decisions

101864187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

Bay, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellants were indicted at the October term, 1859, of the Laclede Circuit Court, for a felonious assault upon one Martin M. Nulty; Harris as principal in the first, and the other defendants as principals in the second degree.

¶3The indictment contains two counts, both drawn under sec. 35, art. 2, of the act relating to crimes and punishments, which reads as follows :

“ Every person who shall, on purpose and of malice aforethought, shoot at or stab another, or assault or boat another with a deadly weapon, or by any other means or force likely to produce death, or great bodily harm, with intent to kill, maim, ravish or rob such person, or in the attempt to commit any burglary or other felony, or in resisting the execution of legal process, shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary not exceeding ten years.”

¶4The first count charges the assault to have been committed unlawfully and feloniously, and with an intent to kill; the second count is in the same language, except that it charges the assault to have been committed with an intent to wound, maim, disfigure, &c.; but in neither count is it alleged that it was committed on purpose and of malice aforethought, the omission of which words was held by this court in a case precisely like this, and under the same statute, to be fatal to the indictment. (State v. Comfort, 5 Mo. 357.)

¶5*348The motion in arrest should have been sustained.

The other judges concurring,

¶6the judgment will be reversed.

/34/mo/347 · .json · Public domain