State v. West
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. —Hon. Henry P. White, Judge. (1) The provisions of the statute (R. S., sec. 1541), under which defendants were convicted was not directed against secret acts of illicit intercourse, no matter how much they may be in violation of good morals. The question has not been directly passed upon in this state, but has been indirectly.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. —Hon. Henry P. White, Judge. (1) The provisions of the statute (R. S., sec. 1541), under which defendants were convicted was not directed against secret acts of illicit intercourse, no matter how much they may be in violation of good morals. The question has not been directly passed upon in this state, but has been indirectly. State v. Hinson, 7 Mo. 244; State v. Barrieron, 8 “Mo. 494; State v. Byron, 20 Mo. 210 ; State v. Or owner, 56 Mo. 147. In Iowa, under a. similar statute to ours, the question has been decided favorably to appellant. State v. Marvin,…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The defendants were charged in the first count of the information, with living in a state of open and notorious adultery, and of this charge they were acquitted, so that the instructions with respect to this need not be considered. The second count of the informa,tion was based upon that part of section 1541, Revised Statutes, 1879, which provides that “every man and woman, one or both of whom are married, and not to each other, who shall lewdly and lasciviously abide and cohibit with each other,” on conviction shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor. The instruction given on behalf of the…
2Cited by14 opinions
- State v. BurgdoerferSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. FiesterOregon Supreme Court · 1897
- People v. MonaghanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- State v. O'KelleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
- State v. GeigerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.