State v. McNerney
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — No». Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) There is a fatal variance between the note described in the information and the note proven in testimony both as to date and amount. The court erred in admitting testimony as to the $33.36 note. The State should have been confined to prove the note pleaded and described in the information.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. — No». Leigh B. Woodside, Judge. (1) There is a fatal variance between the note described in the information and the note proven in testimony both as to date and amount. The court erred in admitting testimony as to the $33.36 note. The State should have been confined to prove the note pleaded and described in the information. To sustain the ruling of the circuit court would be to set aside well-established principles of criminal pleading, trench upon the constitutional rights of the accused, make his defense hazardous and his acquittal insecure. State v. Smith,…
1Opinion of the Court
GOODE, J. —
Appellant was convicted of procuring by false pretenses the execution and delivery of a promissory note for $66.72 and was fined $50.
The substance of the testimony of Clark, the prosecuting witness, was that some time on or about the first day of April, 1901, appellant spoke to him in regard, to taking some life insurance in the company appellant represented. Clark stated that he already had a policy of insurance and appellant said that the twenty-year life policy his company would issue would be accompanied, without additional cost, by an accident policy entitling Clark’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State v. PorterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- State v. FaySupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- State v. EnglishSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- State v. OwenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. YoungMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912