State v. Flynn
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.—Hon. H. L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the introduction of the testimony objected to. State v. Wolf 15 Mo. 168; State v. Goetz, 34 Mo. 85; State v.' JIarolcl, 38 Mo. 496; State v. Laubert, 42 Mo. 242; 12 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, pp. 843, 855, 878 and cases cited. (2) And the error was not cured by an instruction withdrawing such testimony from the consideration of the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.—Hon. H. L. Edmunds, Judge. (1) The court erred in permitting the introduction of the testimony objected to. State v. Wolf 15 Mo. 168; State v. Goetz, 34 Mo. 85; State v.' JIarolcl, 38 Mo. 496; State v. Laubert, 42 Mo. 242; 12 Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, pp. 843, 855, 878 and cases cited. (2) And the error was not cured by an instruction withdrawing such testimony from the consideration of the jury. State v. Hopper, 71 Mo. 425; State v. Fredericks, 85 Mo. 145. (3) Such testimony is only admissible where the proof of the act charged in the-indictment…
1Opinion of the Court
. ■ Buegess, J.
At the November term, 1893, of the criminal court of the city of St. Louis, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny, and her punishment fixed at two and one half years in the penitentiary. The articles stolen were wearing apparel, the property *482of one Katharine Eranciscus. After unsuccessful-motions for new trial and in arrest she appealed. The bill of exceptions does not set out the testimony i'afull, but contains the following:
“The state of Missouri * * * produced testimony to the jury tending to prove the issue on her part, and one Marion Lindsay was introduced and sworn…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. CastorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. HedgpethSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- State v. PattersonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1917
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1913