State v. Miller
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. Henry L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The indictment is sufficient in all respects, and is even more comprehensive in its allegations than is required by the statute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. — Hon. Henry L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The indictment is sufficient in all respects, and is even more comprehensive in its allegations than is required by the statute. It is not necessary under the section (R. S. 3746) to state whether the accused voted a second time in his own name, or in the name of another person; nor that he voted more than once at the same polling place, or at different polling places— it is sufficient to aver that at an election held pursuant to law he voted more than once. Nor is it necessary to set out the names of the judges of…
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
Defendant was indicted for fraudulent voting, and being found guilty, there was awarded to him two years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary, and he appeals from that judgment. The indictment charges substantially as follows:
“That on the sixth day of November, 1894, a general election was held in the city of St. Louis, under *299the constitution and laws of this state, for certain state officers; that defendant, on said day, in the city of St. Louis, did appear at polling place designated as precinct number 1, before the judges and clerks of election of the first ward of said city in and for said…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. SekritSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. RosenblattSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. KruegerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1896
- State v. WadeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- State v. EtchmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1904
- State v. HuberSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924