State v. Linney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. I. The Law of Self Defense necessarily includes the right of attack, and the 5th instruction given for the State is erroneous. (State of Mo. vs. Sloan, 47 Mo., 604; see page 613 ; Rosc. Crim. Ev., cited and approved ; Wharton’s Crim., Law, 5th Rev. Ed., §§ 1026, 1027 ; State vs. Scott, 17 Mo. 521.) II. The sixth instruction given for the State is erroneous.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Livingston Circuit Court. I. The Law of Self Defense necessarily includes the right of attack, and the 5th instruction given for the State is erroneous. (State of Mo. vs. Sloan, 47 Mo., 604; see page 613 ; Rosc. Crim. Ev., cited and approved ; Wharton’s Crim., Law, 5th Rev. Ed., §§ 1026, 1027 ; State vs. Scott, 17 Mo. 521.) II. The sixth instruction given for the State is erroneous. It is founded upon § 11, page 447, 1st Wagner Statutes, and fails to assign what would constitute a cruel and unusual manner, orto set forth any hypothesis of facts pro ven,-which would guide the jury…
1Opinion of the CourtWaoner, Judge
We have scarcely ever examined a record of this length where the appellant had so little ground for reasonable complaint. The first objection relied on, that the court erred in *41excluding a part of the conversation of a witness when it had admitted the balance, is not good. The question propounded to the witness in his cross-examination, and the testimony sought to he elicited, related to an entirely different transaction from what he had been previously testifying to, had no necessary connection or congruity with it, and was not a part of the same conversation.
There is nothing in the point…
2Cited by26 opinions
- State v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of Missouri · 1874
- State v. BuchlerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1890
- State v. CullerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State v. AmosSupreme Court of Missouri · 1977
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.