Legal Opinion

State v. Blitz

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 3, 1903PublishedCited by 42 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal from Jackson Criminal Court. — Hon. Samuel Davis, Special Judge. The court erred in overruling defendant’s application for a continuance. The application showed due diligence. R. S. 1899, sec. 2600; State v. Warden, 94 Mo. 649; State v. Dewitt, 152 Mo. 76; State v. Bradley, 90 Mo. 160. The court should have heard evidence in support of defendant’s application for a change of venue. R. S. 1899, sec. 2576; State v. Bohannon, 76 Mo. 562. If the evidence establishes the causes alleged in the petition for a change of venue the court should have ordered the change. State v. Hudspeth, 150 Mo.…

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

At the September term,1901, in the criminal court of Jackson eounty, Missouri, H. S. Hadley, prosecuting attorney, filed an information charging defendant, in connection with Ladd and Mullet, with grand larceny. As there is no assault made upon the information, there is no necessity for incumbering this opinion with a copy of it. The case was called for trial on October 25, 1901. The defendant then filed his motion and affidavit for a continuance, which was by the court overruled. The cause was continued to November 1,1901. At that time, the cause was called for trial before Hon. Samuel…

2Cases cited12 opinions

State v. DonnellySupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
State v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
State v. PrendibleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
State v. GrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898

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

3Cited by42 opinions

State v. BarringtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
Fisher v. GunnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
State v. Van HornSupreme Court of Missouri · 1982
State v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
Lewis v. WahlSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992

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