Legal Opinion

State v. Stegall

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 1896PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from the St. Francois Circuit Court. — Hon. William Carter, Special Judge. (1) The trial court erred in quashing the original information filed in this cause. The information follows and pursues the language of the statute. It is sufficient if the offense be set forth with substantial accuracy and certainty to a reasonable intendment. The substantial rights of defendant are not prejudiced thereby. R. S., sec. 3785; State v. Fare, 39 Mo. App.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtBigg-s, J.

This proceeding was commenced before a justice of the peace. When the case reached the cir*245cuit court, a motion to quash the information was sustained. The prosecuting attorney filed an amended information, which the circuit court, on motion of defendant, struck from the files. The state has appealed.

That the motion to quash was properly sustained, admits of no doubt. The charge was the disturbance of a religious congregation (R. S. 1889, sec. 3785). The information failed to allege that the place, where the congregation met, was set apart for religious worship, and it did not set out the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

State v. RussellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
State v. KindrickMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
State v. SchienemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
State v. KempleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
State v. WonderlyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885

3Cited by4 opinions

State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
State v. AlfordMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
State v. EllisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
State v. ThayerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900