State v. Ashcraft

Decided April 15, 1888

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1888-04-15

— Hon. John G. Wear, Judge. Section 1923, Revised Statutes, was intended to operate to discharge a defendant only where the state had shown laches for three successive terms after the finding of the indictment. State v. Huling, 21 Mo. 464, 471. The record does not show that the state was guilty of such laches as to authorize the trial court to sustain the motion to'discharge the defendant.

Relies on State v. Bollinger

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed · Decided 1888-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1963

6 state decisions

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.

¶1On motion of defendant, she was discharged because not brought to trial before the end of the third term of the court in which her case was pending. ■ R. S., sec. 1923.

¶2The correctness of this action of the trial court cannot be considered, for the reason that the state is not allowed an appeal in this sort of a case. The state is only allowed an appeal in any criminal prosecution, where the indictment is quashed, adjudged insufficient on demurrer, or where judgment thereon is arrested. R. S., secs. 1985, 1986; State v. Bollinger, 69 Mo. 577.

¶3Therefore, appeal dismissed.

All concur, Ray, J., absent.