Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Mo. App. 385

State v. Stern

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 23, 1877

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1877-10-23

<p>An information charging an offence, but not naming the person accused, is a nullity, and a defendant arrested upon a warrant issued under such information, upon his arraignment, is entitled to immediate release; and if his motion for dismissal be overruled, and he is held until a new information is filed, upon which he is convicted, such conviction will be set aside and the defendant discharged.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1952

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Judgment reversed and defendant discharged · Decided 1877-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lewis, P. J.,

¶1delivered tbe opinion of the court.

¶2An information was filed in the Court of Criminal Correction, charging the offence of selling, exposing to sale, causing to be sold, etc., certain lottery tickets, but without naming the person accused. A blank space appeared where the name should be. A warrant was issued and served on the defendant, who, upon his arraignment, moved for a dis*386missal. His motion was overruled, and, upon a new information, filed by the prosecuting attorney, the defendant was tried and convicted.

¶3The first information was a nullity. When the defendant moved for a dismissal, he was entitled to immediate release. The forms of law by which alone the courts are authorized to restrain the liberty of the citizen are, under our institutions, as essential as any considerations of guilt or innocence. The defendant is here entitled to be restored to all that he has lost by the error of the court wherein he was-arraigned. The judgment is reversed and the defendant discharged.

All the judges concur.
/4/moapp/385 · .json · Public domain