State v. Burgess
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from, Qritndy Circuit Court. I. The signature of the foreman of a grand jury is not a» essential part of an indictment. The statute requiring it is: merely directory. (State v. Mertens, 14 Mo. 94; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432.) The record shows the indictment was “ returned into” court by the grand jury “ a true bill.”
Read the full summary
•Appeal from, Qritndy Circuit Court. I. The signature of the foreman of a grand jury is not a» essential part of an indictment. The statute requiring it is: merely directory. (State v. Mertens, 14 Mo. 94; State v. Clark, 18 Mo. 432.) The record shows the indictment was “ returned into” court by the grand jury “ a true bill.” Indictments found by a .grand jury are presented by their foreman, in their presence, to the court, and are there filed, and remain as records of such court. (R. C. 1845, p. 86-6, § 21)j This goes to the validity of the indictment — the signature of the foreman to its…
1Opinion of the CourtDboNARD, Judge
According to the English practice, indictments are drawn up an'd preferred to the grand jury by any private prosecutor, in the name of the king. The jury then hear the evidence, and if they think the accusation groundless, they endorse upon the bill “not a true bill;” but if they are satisfied of its.truth, they endorse it “ a true bill.” It is then deliver d publicly in court by -.the -.grand .jury, received by the court, and placed among its files, and the indictment is then said to be found, and the party stands accused. (4 Blac. Com. 306; 1 Chit. Crim. L. '324.) The American practice is…
2Cited by16 opinions
- State v. OrrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. HaysSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- State v. ElginSupreme Court of Missouri · 1965
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.