State v. Ashcraft
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Carter Circuit Court. — Hon. John G. Wear, Judge. Section 1923, Revised Statutes, was intended to operate to discharge a defendant only where the state had shown laches for three successive terms after the finding of the indictment. State v. Huling, 21 Mo. 464, 471. The record does not show that the state was guilty of such laches as to authorize the trial court to sustain the motion to'discharge the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
On motion of defendant, she was discharged because not brought to trial before the end of the third term of the court in which her case was pending. ■ R. S., sec. 1923.
The correctness of this action of the trial court cannot be considered, for the reason that the state is not allowed an appeal in this sort of a case. The state is only allowed an appeal in any criminal prosecution, where the indictment is quashed, adjudged insufficient on demurrer, or where judgment thereon is arrested. R. S., secs. 1985, 1986; State v. Bollinger, 69 Mo. 577.
Therefore, appeal dismissed.
All concur, Ray, J.,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. BollingerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. WearSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- State v. ClipperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963
- State v. PottingerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1956
- State v. CarrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.