State v. Schaefer
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. ' (1)There is no evidence of criminal intent in this case; and there cannot be a conviction without it. State v. Obershaw, 11 Mo. App. 67; State v. Kempf 11 Mo. App. 33; State v. Zinn, 26 Mo. App. 37. In criminal cases the question is not as to the effect of the act done, but as to the animus which prompted its commission.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis County Circuit Court. — Hon. Rudolph Hirzel, Judge. ' (1)There is no evidence of criminal intent in this case; and there cannot be a conviction without it. State v. Obershaw, 11 Mo. App. 67; State v. Kempf 11 Mo. App. 33; State v. Zinn, 26 Mo. App. 37. In criminal cases the question is not as to the effect of the act done, but as to the animus which prompted its commission. State v.,Pitts, 58 Mo. 558. (2) The instruction offered by the defendant and refused should have been given. The court’s instruction number 4 is not the law. The fence being partly on defendant’s…
1Opinion of the CourtBiggs, J.
— Section 3593 of the Revised Statutes of 1889 provides, among other things, that “,every person who shall * * * wantonly and without right, break or cut down, injure, take or carry away any portion of a fence * * * belonging to and inclosing lands not his own, * * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted under this section. On this appeal, she claims, first, that the charge is not sustained by the evidence; second, that the court erred as to the instructions; third, that the information is fatally defective; and fourth, that the court should…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. KlingerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- State v. ErbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- State v. ZinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. BooneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894