State v. Westbrook
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Stoddard Connty Circuit Court. — No». W. S. U Walker, Judge. The State was permitted to convict the defendant of the offense charged by the proof of other and distinct conversations or statements than that charged. This evidence was incompetent and should not have been admitted for that purpose. State v. Pulitzer, 12 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Stoddard Connty Circuit Court. — No». W. S. U Walker, Judge. The State was permitted to convict the defendant of the offense charged by the proof of other and distinct conversations or statements than that charged. This evidence was incompetent and should not have been admitted for that purpose. State v. Pulitzer, 12 Mo. App. 6; Tippens v. State (Tex), 43 S. W. 1000-; Collins v. State (Tex.), 44 S. W. 846; State v. Railroad, 219 Mo. 156, 117 S. W. 1173; State v. Stike, 149' Mo. App. 104, 129 S. W. 1024; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 299,135' S. W. 4; State v. Spray, 174 Mo. 569', 74…
1Opinion of the CourtFarrington, J.
— The appellant was 'convicted in the circuit court of Stoddard county on an information charging him with having unlawfully, falsely and maliciously charged and accused one Eva G. Pentacost of fornication, “by then and there falsely speaking of, and concerning her, the said Eva G. Pentacost, in the presence and hearing of Milo Castleman, Charley McMillan, Frank Asa, James Young, Frank Fowler and divers other persons to the prosecuting attorney unknown . . . • the following false and slanderous words, imputing to the said Eva G. Pentacost the act and offense of fornication, that it to say,£…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Christal v. CraigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Birch v. BentonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- Heller v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- State v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Noeninger v. VogtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.