Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Mo. App. 488

State v. Haycroft

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 25, 1892

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1892-04-25

— Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. (1) In the first count the defendant was charged with disturbing the peace of a family; in the second count, -with, disturbing tbe peace of individuals, who composed the family, naming them. The offense charged in each count was identical. The silence of the - jury in the justice’s court on either count is an implied acquittal of the defendant on the other.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1907

3 state decisions

Relies on State v. Geiger

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Aeeirmed · Decided 1892-04-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ellison, J.

¶1Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor before a justice of the peace under section 3784, Revised Statutes, 1889. He appealed to the circuit court where he was again convicted, and he comes here for a review of the case. The information is in two counts, but it is conceded that they are for the same offense. Defendant’s conviction in the justice’s court was general, without mentioning either count. In the circuit court, the record shows that he was proceeded *491against on the first count. He endeavored to abate the cause in the circuit court, upon the idea as we gather it from the. brief, that since the verdict of the jury in the justice’s court was general, and was silent as to the count upon which he was found guilty, it amounted to an acquittal on one count, and, as the counts were conceded to be for the same offense, it amounted to an acquittal on both counts. This contention cannot be allowed. When there is but one offense charged in separate counts, a general verdict is sufficient, and defendant’s suggestions have no application to such a case. He was tried and convicted before the justice for only one offense, and before the circuit court, on appeal, for the same offense, and where anything occurred to abate the cause in the circuit court we are not able to discover.

¶2II. It -is next urged that the conviction is void for the reason that defendant was not arraigned in the circuit court. In misdemeanors there should be an arraignment. State v. Geiger, 45 Mo. App. 111. But if such arraignment is made and entered in the justice’s court there need not be a rearraignment in the circuit court on appeal.

¶3The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
/49/moapp/488 · .json · Public domain