State v. Batchelor
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEALS from Stoddard Circuit Court. The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment. The indictment is in the language of the statute containing the offence, and is therefore sufficient.
Read the full summary
APPEALS from Stoddard Circuit Court. The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment. The indictment is in the language of the statute containing the offence, and is therefore sufficient. The description of the weapon is sufficient to show that it was a deadly weapon, with the means and force likely to produce death or great bodily harm, which suffices for allegations to that effect in the indictment: Jennings vs. The State, 9 Mo. 863.’ But supposing that the offence described in § 34 Art. 2 of the act concerning crimes and their punishments, Rev. Code 1845 p. 350, he…
1Opinion of the CourtHyland, J.
T,he indictments were quashed in both of these cases, and the circuit attorney excepted to the opinion of the court in each case, as he did in the case of the State against Richard WalJ, just decided by this court, without tendering or filing any bill of exceptions. These cases then are justly within the principles set forth in the opinion of this court in the above case of State vs. Wall, to which we refer.
The judgment in each is affirmed,
the other judges concurring.
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. GeeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- State v. SettleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- In re GardnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
- Woods, Christy & Co. v. MosierSupreme Court of Missouri · 1856
- Smith v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905