State v. Rippey
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woo chide, Judge. (1) Only two instructions were given to the jury on behalf of the State. Instruction 1 embraced all of the elements contained in the indictment and properly marked out the punishment as by the statute provided.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court. — Hon. L. B. Woo chide, Judge. (1) Only two instructions were given to the jury on behalf of the State. Instruction 1 embraced all of the elements contained in the indictment and properly marked out the punishment as by the statute provided. R. S. 1899, sec. 1898 and 1903; State v. Price, 186 Mo. 140. (2) Instruction 2, on the part of the State, told the jury that the defendant was a competent witness in his own behalf, but that the jury might, in weighing his testimony, take into consideration the fact that he was the defendant on trial. This instruction…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
At the March term, 1909, the grand jury of Pulaski county returned an indictment against the defendant, charging him with having on or about the 7th of December, 1908, at the said county, unlawfully and feloniously placed and affixed his own brand upon a certain light red steer, the property of one G. W. Berry, and altered the mark of the said animal, with the intent then and there feloniously to steal and convert the said steer to his own use. The indictment is drawn under section 1903, Revised Statutes 1899, and sufficiently charges the offense.
*345The defendant was duly arrested and arraigned…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- State v. FinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. McWilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1963