TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Cole

The State of Missouri v. John C. Cole

State v. Cole, 48 Mo. 70 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1871
Judges
Currier, Other
Citations
48 Mo. 70
Cited by 10
Headnotes
1. Practice, criminal — Assault and battery — Prior conviction not a defense when fraudulently obtained. — A defendant, having committed an assault and battery, procured himself to be arrested and fined a small amount. Held, that such conviction and fine was not a defense to a subsequent prosecution instituted by the injured party for the same offense. Such action was a mere fraud upon the criminal justice of the State, and cannot be allowed to succeed.
Summary
JLppeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Defendant had been convicted and fined by a court of competent jurisdiction for the same offense. Defendant went before the justice and pleaded guilty. What, then, was left to be tried? If a jury had been sworn, what duty would it have had to perform? Simply fixing the fine. The guilt was established by the plea of guilty, and the justice had the undoubted right to assess the punishment.

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

Opinion of the Court — Currier

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

Currier, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant, having committed an assault and battery, as the case shoAvs, went before a justice and instituted proceedings against himself, and was fined three dollars and costs. Subsequently the present prosecution was instituted by the injured party for the same offense. The defendant pleads the former conviction in bar of the prosecution.

It is apparent that.the first prosecution was a mere sham, gotten up by the defendant to shield him from the consequences *71 of a real prosecution followed up by a real prosecutor. His action in that respect was a fraud upon tbe cnminal justice of the State, and cannot be allowed to succeed. The conviction, if such it might be called, is no bar to the present prosecution. It is a sufficient answer to the plea, that the alleged conviction was procured by the fraud and evil practice of the defendant himself. (8 Greenl. Ev., § 88, and authorities cited.)

Let the judgment be affirmed.

The other judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1878–1879: 11890–1891: 11894–1895: 11904–1905: 11914–1915: 11918–1919: 21922–1923: 11926–1927: 11974–1975: 118782026peak 1918 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weaver v. Schaaf520 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1975)
  2. State v. Craig97 S.E. 400 (N.C. 1918)
  3. State v. Swepson79 N.C. 632 (1878)
  4. Newton v. State1918 OK CR 12, 170 P. 270
  5. State v. Buente165 S.W. 340 (Mo. 1914)
  6. West v. State1923 OK CR 229, 217 P. 1067

Most recent

  1. Weaver v. Schaaf520 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1975)
  2. State ex rel. Earsom v. Fisher138 S.E. 316 (W. Va. 1927)
  3. West v. State1923 OK CR 229, 217 P. 1067
  4. State v. Craig97 S.E. 400 (N.C. 1918)
  5. Newton v. State1918 OK CR 12, 170 P. 270
  6. State v. Buente165 S.W. 340 (Mo. 1914)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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