State v. Modlin
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from McDonald Circnit Court. — No». F. G. Johnston, Judge. (1) Defendant was charged withbeing an accessory-after the fact, and the jury found him guilty of harboring thieves. State v. DeWitt, 186 Mo. 61; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc.
Read the full summary
Appeal from McDonald Circnit Court. — No». F. G. Johnston, Judge. (1) Defendant was charged withbeing an accessory-after the fact, and the jury found him guilty of harboring thieves. State v. DeWitt, 186 Mo. 61; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3 Ed.), secs. 81, 82,127,128. (2) The information is insufficient in that it charges that before defendant could claim his exemptions from' the statute creating the offense he is charged with violating he must be related as set out in the statute to both Eller and Winslo. (1) The information, which was accompanied by the affidavit of the prosecuting attorney, was…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, J.
The prosecuting attorney of McDonald county, on July 1, 1905, filed an information in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of said county, *378duly verified, wherein and whereby he charged that “Floyd Eller and Joe Winslo in May, 1905, at said county, did feloniously take, steal and carry away one sorrel horse, the property of one Clay Robbins, and one saddle, the property of one H. H. Shover, of the value of thirty dollars, and that the defendant Charles Modlin, well knowing the said Floyd Eller and Joe Winslo to have committed the aforesaid felonies in manner and form aforesaid,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. DeWittSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. SausseleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1954
- State v. DimmickSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Kimball v. Territory of ArizonaArizona Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1950
- State v. RosegrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.