State v. Nitch
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. No repugnancy existing, the offenses being kindred in nature, and violating the same section of the statute, the motion to quash was properly overruled, whether the information be regarded as containing one or two counts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Cape Girardeau Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry C. Riley, Judge. No repugnancy existing, the offenses being kindred in nature, and violating the same section of the statute, the motion to quash was properly overruled, whether the information be regarded as containing one or two counts. State v. Eletcher, 18 Mo. 426; State v. Meyers, 20 Mo. 410. Treating the information as charging two different offenses, yet since they are of the same nature, and the punishment, which is provided for in section 3623, being the same for each offense, there was no misjoinder, and the general verdict…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
This is an appeal from a conviction for misdemeanor on the following information:
“T. D. Hines, prosecuting attorney, etc., informs A. H. Grant, a justice of the peace, etc., that Vince Nitch, the defendant in the above entitled cause, at the county and state aforesaid, on or about the 1st day of December, 1896¿ and at divers times and on divers days between said 1st day of December, 1896, and the 27th day of March, 1897, unlawfully, willfully and maliciously did break, injure and destroy the walls of a certain building, to wit, a limekiln, the property of Isiah H.Poe, and situated on the land…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- State v. StacySupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. WagnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- State v. ClawsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. ShermanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- State v. JablouskyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- State v. BurkMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915