Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

85 Mo. 539

State v. McDonald

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1885

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1885-04-15

Louis County Circuit Court.—Hoar. W. W. Edwards, Judge. The defendant was jointly charged with several others, in the circuit court of St. Louis county, with robbery in the first degree, upon the following indictment : “The grand jurors of the state of Missouri now here in’court duly empaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire withip and for the body of the county of St. Louis, and state of Missouri, upon their oaths, present and charge that Win.

Relies on State v. Marshall · State v. Williams · State v. Ray

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1885-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1917 · most notably State v. Meyers (1889), State v. Brooks (1887)

26 state decisions

1301885189019001910decided

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 →

Sherwood, J.

¶1The defendant was indicted for .and convicted of the crime of . robbery, m ¿he first de*543gree, and Ms punishment assessed at ten years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary.

¶2I. The evidence has been carefully examined, and in our opinion is sufficient to support the verdict.

¶3II. The indictment, though containing three counts, really charges in different forms but one and the same offence, and, therefore, a general finding of guilty was sufficient, and no specification of the particular count was necessary. State v. Miller, 67 Mo. 604.

¶4III. The rule in criminal cases in regard to matters of mere exception is precisely the same as in civil. R. S., sec. 1921. And as defendant saved no exceptions during the progress of the trial, nor in reference to the instructions, nor upon the overruling of his motions, there is nothing presented by the record calling for review. State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400 ; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345 ; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310.

¶5Therefore, in the absence of any defect in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.
/85/mo/539 · .json · Public domain