State v. Nunley
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. — Now. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) This being an offense under the statute, a reasonable compliance with the language of the statute is all that is necessary so long as the defendant is informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. State v. West, 157 Mo. 309; State v. Hendrickson, 165 Mo. 226; State y.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Butler Circuit Court. — Now. J. L. Fort, Judge. (1) This being an offense under the statute, a reasonable compliance with the language of the statute is all that is necessary so long as the defendant is informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. State v. West, 157 Mo. 309; State v. Hendrickson, 165 Mo. 226; State y. Williams, 136 Mo. 293; State v. Hall, 164 Mo. 528. (2) The fourth count follows the language of the indictment in the cglse of State v. Williams, 136 Mo. 293, and has reference to the same state of affairs. The defendant in that count is charged…
1Opinion of the CourtPox, J.
On the 11th day of August, 1903, there was filed in the circuit court of Butler county an information on behalf of the prosecuting attorney, charging the defendant with a violation of section 2043, Revised Statutes 1899. The information contains four counts. The defendant was convicteduponthe second andfourth counts, and his punishment assessed at three years in the penitentiary on each count. No motion to quash was, filed, and no bill of exceptions has been presented to this court for review. We, therefore, have the case here on the record proper.
The second and fourth counts of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ex parte CornwallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- State v. HallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- State v. FutrellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- State v. MaherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1939
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1961