State v. Stumbo
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Dade Circuit Court. This was an indictment for selling liquor without a license. It was not stated in the indictment when the alleged offence was committed. I. The indictment is bad. A new trial should have been granted.
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The only objection to the indictment is that it omits to state the year in which the offence was committed. This objection is disposed of by the 27th section of article 4 of the act regulating proceedings in criminal cases, (R. C. 1855, p. 1176,) which declares that no indictment shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the trial, judgment, or other "proceedings thereon be stayed, arrested, or in any manner affected, “ for omitting to state the time at which the offence was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offence.”
Evidence had been given by the defendant, on the trial,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. LarrimoreSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
- Beauchamp v. SconceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1848
3Cited by14 opinions
- Newcomb v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. CookSupreme Court of Missouri · 1971
- State v. WardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Cook v. St. Louis & Keokuk RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- State v. SumpterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1934
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.