State v. Manning
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The court erred in permitting the State to show that the defendant had previously been convicted of a similar offense. Such an offense was not infamous — did not disqualify at common law, and hence can not be shown under our code of procedure.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Audrain Circuit Court. — Hon. E. M. Hughes, Judge. The court erred in permitting the State to show that the defendant had previously been convicted of a similar offense. Such an offense was not infamous — did not disqualify at common law, and hence can not be shown under our code of procedure. State v. Smith, 125 Mo. 2; State v. Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642; Gardner v. Railroad, 135 Mo. 97; State v. Dyer, 139 Mo. 213; State v. Grant, 144 Mo. 65. (1) As to point 4 in appellant’s brief, section 4680, Revised Statutes 1899, is as follows: “Any person who has been convicted of a criminal…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
Appellant, a regular registered and practicing physician was indicted for a violation of the provisions of section 3050, Revised Statutes 1899. He was duly put upon trial and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $40. To reverse this sentence he has appealed to this court.
I. The first assignment of error goes to the sufficiency of the description of the prescription charged to have been issued by defendant to enable the party to whom it was issued to obtain intoxicating liquors. The indictment charges that the prescription was issued on the fourth day of June, 1899, that it was issued to…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. DonnellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- State v. RiderSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. BlitzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- State v. ShanksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910