State v. Burns
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Si. Louis Criminal Court. The prisoner is charged with committing the offense within the county of St. Louis. The proof shows that it was committed in Mullanphy street, but does not show that this street was in the county of St. Louis. Hence the jurisdiction of the court is not shown. (See Const. U. S., art. I, § 6; Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Si. Louis Criminal Court. The prisoner is charged with committing the offense within the county of St. Louis. The proof shows that it was committed in Mullanphy street, but does not show that this street was in the county of St. Louis. Hence the jurisdiction of the court is not shown. (See Const. U. S., art. I, § 6; Mo. Bill of Rights, art. I, § 18 ; -Ewell v. State, 6 Yerg. 364; Hite v. State, 9 Yerg. 357; Yates v. State, 10 Yerg. 549; 1 Chit. 178; 2 Leach, 637 ; 2 East, 605 ; 2 Russ. Crimes, 799-800 ; Bish. Cr. Law, 552-67, § 8; Rose. Crim. Ev., tit. Yenue, 250-259; 1 Whart. Cr.…
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, Judge
The accused was indicted, in connection with Patrick Duffy and Mary Ostermeyer, for murder in the first degree, convicted and sentenced to be executed. No exceptions were taken or saved to any ruling of the court on the trial, and an examination of the record has fully convinced us that the action of the court was entirely proper and unexceptionable. The only point now raised is that the record does not show that the crime was committed in St. Louis county. The witnesses all speak of the murder as taking place on Mullanphy street, but it is not expressly stated anywhere' that Mullanphy street…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gordon v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1836
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 2007
- State v. HollandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1945
- State v. SandersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- State v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
- State v. KincaidWashington Supreme Court · 1912
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.