Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Mo. 313

State v. Gee

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 15, 1883

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1883-10-15

<p>Practice, Criminal: motion to quasii : bill of exceptions. A motion to quash an indictment not being a part of the record proper, in order to obtain a review of the action of the trial court in ruling on such a motion, it must be embodied in a bill of exceptions.</p>

Relies on State v. Wall · State v. Fortune & Hannan · State v. Batchelor

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Aeeirmed · Decided 1883-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1910

14 state decisions

801883189019001910decided

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 →

Hough, C. J.

¶1The defendant was indicted for receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. On motion of the defendant the circuit court quashed the indictment, and the State brings the case here by writ of error. No bill of exceptions having been filed in this cause, preserving the motion to quash, we cannot review the action of the court below in sustaining the motion. Motions to quash are not regarded as a part of the record proper, as indictments may sometimes be quashed for causes not appearing on the face thereof. State v. Fortune &; Hannan, 10 Mo. 466; State v. Batchelor, 15 Mo. 207; State v. Wall, 15 Mo. 208. Having before us in contemplation of law only the indictment and the judgment of the court quashing the same, as it might have been quashed for causes not appearing on -its face, we cannot say that the court erred in its ruling.

¶2The judgment of the circuit court must, therefore, be affirmed.

The other judges concur, except, Judge Henry, who dissents.
/79/mo/313 · .json · Public domain