State v. Barnett
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal f rom Wright Circuit Court. cited: Wagn. Stat. p. 1103, § 15 ; State vs. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55 ; State vs. Buckner, 25 Mo. 167 ; State vs. Cross, 27 Mo. 332 ; State vs. Braunschweig, 36 Mo. 397 ; State vs. Ott, 49 Mo. 326 ; State vs. Cheek, and State vs. Montgomery, decided-at the present term of this court, {ante p. 296. cited : Shot-well vs. State, 37 Mo. 259.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, Judge
I. The defendant, indicted for and convicted of grand larceny, has appealed to this court, and since it nowhere appears in the record that he was ever arraigned or pleaded to the indictment, or *301that he was personally present during the trial, or at any time during its progress, or at the rendition of the verdict, the judgment of conviction cannot stand. Our statute (Wagn. Stat. p. 1103, § 15,) expressly requires a person indicted for a felony to be “personally present daring the trial,” and our repoated decisions are uniform in requiring that the record shall show this. (State vs. Jones, 61…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- State v. BarnesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- State v. OttSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Shotwell v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. MeyersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- State v. BennettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- State v. MeagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Belo v. MayesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.