TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Stumbo

The State v. Stumbo

State v. Stumbo, 26 Mo. 306 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1858
Judges
Richardson
Citations
26 Mo. 306
Cited by 14
Headnotes
1. An indictment is not rendered invalid by reason of an omission to state therein the time at which the offence was committed, where time is not of the essence of the offence. (R. C. 1855, p. 1176, § 27.) 2. The discovery of evidence of a character merely cumulative is no ground for a new trial.
Summary
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.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Richardson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Richardson, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

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, of the same kind and to the same point as that stated in the motion and affidavit to have been discovered after the trial. It was then merely cumulative and was not sufficient to authorize a new trial. (Beauchamp v. Seance, 12 Mo. 57 ; State v. Larimore, 20 Mo. 425 .)

With the concurrence of the other judges, the judgment will be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1866–1867: 11872–1873: 21874–1875: 11876–1877: 11878–1879: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11884–1885: 11890–1891: 11898–1899: 11934–1935: 11944–1945: 11970–1971: 118662026peak 1872 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Newcomb v. State2 Morr. St. Cas. 1303 (1872)
  2. State v. Cook463 S.W.2d 863 (Mo. 1971)
  3. State v. Ward74 Mo. 253 (1881)
  4. Cook v. St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad56 Mo. 380 (1874)
  5. State v. Sumpter73 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. 1934)
  6. State v. Sammons95 Ind. 22 (1884)

Most recent

  1. State v. Cook463 S.W.2d 863 (Mo. 1971)
  2. Honey v. Kaiser181 S.W.2d 492 (Mo. 1944)
  3. State v. Sumpter73 S.W.2d 760 (Mo. 1934)
  4. St. Joseph Folding Bed Co. v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad50 S.W. 85 (Mo. 1899)
  5. State v. Effinger44 Mo. App. 81 (1891)
  6. State v. Sammons95 Ind. 22 (1884)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Larrimore, 20 Mo. 425 (1855) 7
Beauchamp v. Sconce, 12 Mo. 57 (1848) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list