Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 Mo. 431

State v. Carter

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1889

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1889-04-15

— Hon. M. G. McGregor, Judge. A writ of error or appeal will not be heard in criminal cases when the party suing it out has escaped from the jurisdiction of the court. 1 Chit. Cr. L. 663 ; Whart. Cr. PI. and Pr. (8 Ed.) sec. 774a; State v. Rippon, 2 Bay.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]o permit such a course of conduct to be successful would be trifling with justice, and will not be tolerated,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Branch v. Turner

“is in contempt of the authority of the court and of the law”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Branch v. Turner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Appeal dismissed {on motion) · Decided 1889-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2016 · most notably Goeke v. Branch (1995), State v. Troupe (1995)

2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

12018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

SnERWooD, J.

¶1— Carter, the defendant, was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree, to-wit, the *432killing of one Robert Crockett. He was convicted of that offense, sentenced to be hanged, and being confined in jail a waiting the result of his appeal, made his escape and is still at large. The fact of his escape is shown by the affidavit of the sheriff of Lawrence county.

¶2The cause of the defendant was docketed for the last term of this court; but he being still at large, the state, by its proper officer, moved that the appeal of the defendant be dismissed in consequence of his escape. Whereupon this court at it last term ordered that if the defendant did not on or before the first day of this term return and surrender himself and thus place himself in a position to abide the result of the judgment of this court upon said appeal, the same should be dismissed.

¶3As this case is one of first impression in this state, it is not improper to discuss the grounds upon which the order aforesaid was made. The elaborate and carefully prepared brief on behalf of the state in support of the motion to dismiss, leaves nothing to be desired; and obviates any necessity for further research among the authorities. Speaking on the issue raised by the motion Wharton says: “A writ of error will not be heard, where the party suing it out has escaped from the jurisdiction of the court.” Whart. Crim. PI. and Prac. (S Ed.) sec. 774a. It is only necessary to refer to the numerous authorities collated by the industry of the gentleman who represents the state in this behalf, to-show that the doctrine announced by Wharton is asserted by all of them. The principle announced being this : That a party appealing, who bre'aks jail pending such-appeal, is in contempt of the authority of the court and of the law, and places himself in a position to speculate-on the chances for a reversal, meanwhile, keeping out of the reach of justice, and prepared to render the judgment of reversal nugatory or not at his option. To permit*433sucb. a course of conduct to be successful would be trifling with, justice and will not be tolerated. And the fact tliat a capias could be awarded and a prisoner arrested when so at large cuts no figure in the case.

¶4As the defendant lias failed to surrender himself in compliance with our order, his appeal will be dismissed; and it is so ordered.

All concur.
/98/mo/431 · .json · Public domain