State v. Brown
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal, from Harrison Circuit Court. I. The phrase “other felony ” in § 32 has no reference to the maiming, wounding, etc., mentioned in § 33. Hence an attempt to wound, etc., etc., is not a statutory offense within § 33, which does not refer to “ attempts ” to commit the offense specified. Moreover, the offenses mentioned in § 32 are of higher grade than those embraced in § 33. But the punishment in both is the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from Harrison Circuit Court. I. The phrase “other felony ” in § 32 has no reference to the maiming, wounding, etc., mentioned in § 33. Hence an attempt to wound, etc., etc., is not a statutory offense within § 33, which does not refer to “ attempts ” to commit the offense specified. Moreover, the offenses mentioned in § 32 are of higher grade than those embraced in § 33. But the punishment in both is the same. Why should this be so if the latter section includes not only the offense'but the attempt to commit it? If such were the design of the legislature, then the attempt and the…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The indictment contains two counts. The first charged the prisoner with making an assault with intent to kill, and the second charged him with an assault with intent.to maim, wound and disfigure.
There was a motion to quash the second count on the „ ground that it charged an offense unknown to the law. The motion was overruled. The defendant 'was acquitted on the first count, and convicted on the second ; and whether that count charged an offense under the statute is the only question in the case.
By the statute (Wagn. Stat., 450, § 33) the maiming wounding or disfiguring of any person is made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. FosterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1920
- State v. MunsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- State v. WebbSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916