Legal Opinion

State v. Matheis

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 5, 1892PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction. Hon. George W. Anderson, Special Judge. The record shows that there was an adjournment of the case during its progress. It was the court’s statutory duty to admonish the jury at the adjournment. It should affirmatively appear of record that this was done. R. S. 1889, sec. 4209. “In all prosecutions for * * * for verbal slander * * * the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” Const.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.

Upon an information charging the defendant with criminal slander he was tried and convicted. He assigns the following errors upon this appeal: First. That the court failed to admonish the jury at the hour of adjournment. Second. That there is no substantial evidence in support of the verdict. Third. That the court misdirected the jury as to the law. The second assignment of error has been abandoned by the defendant as untenable.

Touching the first assignment of error it will suffice to say that it does not affirmatively appear by the record that the jury were not admonished, nor does it appear…

2Cases cited3 opinions

State v. BurkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1886
Ex parte DurbinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
State v. HosmerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1885

3Cited by7 opinions

State v. BurgessMissouri Court of Appeals · 1970
State v. KeithleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910
State v. KrammeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1973
State v. GoodmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1972
State v. O'ConnorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.