Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 Mo. 206

State v. Seward

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided February 15, 1868

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1868-02-15

This is a case where defendant was indicted, at the October term, 1866, of the Andrew county Circuit Court, for an assault with intent to kill. At the April term, 1867, of said court, he filed his motion to quash the indictment, and the same was sustained. The State then took the case to the Fifth District Court, where the ruling of the Circuit Court for Andrew county was affirmed; and the case is now brought to this court by appeal.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““But the next question is, whether the indictment does not sufficiently set out an offense under the thirty-second section. It is immaterial what section was in the mind of the pleader when the indictment was drawn, or on what particular section he intended to base it, provided that a sufficient description is set out as to any offense created or recognized by the statute. ’ ’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Goodall

Relies on State v. Comfort · State v. Harris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 1948

14 state decisions

40186818701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Wagner, Judge,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The sole question in this case is whether the court committed error in sustaining the demurrer to the indictment. The indictment contains but one count, and alleges that the defendant, with force and arms, upon the body of one Edward Carter, then and there being, feloniously, on purpose, and willfully, with a deadly weapon to-wit: a double-barreled shot gun, loaded with gun*208powder and leaden balls, which he, the said Minor Seward, then' and there had and held, did then and there make an assault, with the intent him, the said Edward Carter, then and there to kill, contrary, etc. The objection stated in the demurrer, upon which the court held the indictment bad, was, that it did not charge that the offense was committed on purpose and with malice aforethought. The decision of the court below was made on the hypothesis that the indictment was framed on the twenty-ninth section of chapter two hundred of the General Statutes, and that it could not be applied to the thirty-second section of the same chapter. The omission to state that the act was done with malice aforethought would be a fatal defect within the meaning of the twenty-ninth section, as has been repeatedly held by the decisions of this court. (State v. Comfort, 5 Mo. 357; State v. Harris et al., 34 Mo. 347.)

¶3But the next question is, whether the indictment does not sufficiently set out an offense under the thirty-second section. It is immaterial what section was in the mind of the pleader when the indictment was drawn, or on what particular section he intended to base it, provided that a sufficient description is set out as to any offense created or recognized by the statutes.

¶4The thirty-second section provides that every person who shall be convicted of an assault with intent to kill, or to commit any robbery, rape, burglary, manslaughter, or other felony, the punishment for which assault is not .previously prescribed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, or the county jail not less than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. The punishment for the offense set forth in the indictment is not before prescribed, for there is no offense described according to the twenty-ninth section; but the indictment is good and sufficient within the terms and meaning of the thirty-second section. That the prosecutor used some of the terms embodied in the twenty-ninth section, such as “on purpose, and with a deadly weapon,” is not to be regarded as absolutely conclusive that it can be founded on that section only and can be applied to no other: These words may be wholly stricken out and taken to be mere surplusage, and there will still remain a *209complete and sufficient description of an offense as designated in the thirty-second section.

¶5We think the court erred in sustaining the demurrer, and the' judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.

The other judges concur.
/42/mo/206 · .json · Public domain