State v. Kosky
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) The motion to quash the information, or each count therein, should have been sustained, because: (a) The first count of the information (buying and receiving stolen property, knowing it to be stolen) fails to describe the property with sufficient certainty. Clark’s Crim. Proc., sec. 92. (b) Said first count charges two separate and distinct crimes in the one count.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) The motion to quash the information, or each count therein, should have been sustained, because: (a) The first count of the information (buying and receiving stolen property, knowing it to be stolen) fails to describe the property with sufficient certainty. Clark’s Crim. Proc., sec. 92. (b) Said first count charges two separate and distinct crimes in the one count. R. S. 1899, sec. 1916; State v. Thierauf, 167 Mo. 429. (2) The instruction prayed for by the defendant at the close of the State’s case in the nature of…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, P. J.
At the April term, 1904, of the circuit court, city of St. Louis, under an information filed by the circuit attorney, which information was in two counts, the first count charging defendant with receiving stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen, and the second charging him with grand larceny, the defendant was found guilty on the first count of the information, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of two years. His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment having been overruled, defendant appeals.
The State’s evidence tended to show that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Harris v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1888
- State v. CopemanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. BuckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- State v. MintzSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- State v. BarringtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. VaughanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- Stotler v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Laun v. St. Louis & San Francisco RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Gibney v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1907
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.