Legal Opinion

State v. Wray

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided November 5, 1894PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.—Hon. Henry L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The indictment is in proper form, and there is no error apparent upon the record proper. R. S. 1889, sec. 3535. - (2) It has been declared by this court that “unless the motion for new trial be incorporated in the bill of exceptions we can not take notice of any alleged errors arising in the progress of the trial, and which can only be brought to our attention by bill of exceptions.”

Read the full summary

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.—Hon. Henry L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The indictment is in proper form, and there is no error apparent upon the record proper. R. S. 1889, sec. 3535. - (2) It has been declared by this court that “unless the motion for new trial be incorporated in the bill of exceptions we can not take notice of any alleged errors arising in the progress of the trial, and which can only be brought to our attention by bill of exceptions.” State v. Robinson, 79 Mo. 66; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672; State v. Gordon, 117 Mo. 387. This rule applies as well to criminal proceedings…

1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.

Indicted for grand larceny, the defendant was convicted of that ofíense and appeals to this court.

The indictment is sufficient. The evidence has been preserved in the bill of exceptions, but inasmuch as the motion for a new trial has not been preserved in the bill, nor preserved in the record and called for in the bill, the clerk being directed to copy the same, we can not look into any exceptions taken nor into the evidence adduced. R. S. 1889, sec. 2304; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672.

As there is no error in the record proper, the judgment must be affirmed.

All concur.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. GriffinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hiestand v. GeierDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1981
  2. Blanchard v. DormanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  3. Fort Osage Drainage District of Jackson County v. Jackson CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1955
  4. Coy v. LandersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
  5. State v. RevelySupreme Court of Missouri · 1898

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API