State v. Thornhill
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court. — Ho», Argus Cox, Judge. (1) Instruction numbered one, asked by the defendant' was properly refused, because the principles declared therein had already been covered in the instructions given to the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Wright Circuit Court. — Ho», Argus Cox, Judge. (1) Instruction numbered one, asked by the defendant' was properly refused, because the principles declared therein had already been covered in the instructions given to the jury. (2) While it would have been better practice for the State to have introduced the clothes worn by the prosecuting’ witness at the time of the affray as evidence in chief, yet this was a matter resting in the sound discrimination of the trial court.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
The defendant in this case was charged with a felonious assault made upon one Joe Broyles, on the 24th day of December, 1901, in Wright county, Missouri.
The evidence tends to show that the defendant, the prosecuting witness and a number of other persons had congregated at the Nation schoolhouse in Wright county, on the evening before Christmas, for the purpose of attending literary exercises being conducted there, and for the purpose of observing the distribution of presents from a Christmas tree. The defendant and those with whom he came, and who remained at the entertainment after he left,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. CraneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- State v. MilesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. DeckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1912
- State v. PayneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1970
- State v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.