State v. Hamey
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Buchanan Criminal Court. — Hon. B. J. Casteel, J udge. (.1) Tbe indictment is bad for tbe reason that section 1838, Eevised Statutes 1899, upon which it is based, is unconstitutional in that it deprives the accused of the right of trial by jury, as guaranteed by section 28, article 2, Constitution of Missouri.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Buchanan Criminal Court. — Hon. B. J. Casteel, J udge. (.1) Tbe indictment is bad for tbe reason that section 1838, Eevised Statutes 1899, upon which it is based, is unconstitutional in that it deprives the accused of the right of trial by jury, as guaranteed by section 28, article 2, Constitution of Missouri. The right of trial by jury at common law meant that one part of the jury’s duty was to return into court a verdict, if they found defendant guilty, assessing his punishment as provided by law, or a general verdict of guilty, and thereupon the conrt fixed his punishment.…
1DissentSherwood, J.
(dissenting). — This appeal comes from Buchanan county, and was taken because defendant was convicted under an indictment bottomed on tbe violation of tbe prohibition contained in section 1838, Revised Statutes 1899, and bis punishment assessed at one month’s imprisonment in tbe county jail, and tbe payment of a fine of $500.
Tbe cited section, enacted in 1895, is tbe following: “If any person over tbe age of sixteen years shall have carnal knowledge of any unmarried female, of previously chaste character, between tbe ages of fourteen and eighteen years of age, be shall be deemed guilty of a…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- People v. . O'SullivanNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Underwood v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Western U. T. Co. v. StateTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- State v. PatrickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Brundage v. BrundageNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.