TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Burns

The State of Missouri v. Patrick Burns

State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1871
Judges
Other, Wagner
Citations
48 Mo. 438
Cited by 24
Headnotes
1. Practice, criminal — Venue—St. Louis county— City of Si. Louis. — In the trial of a criminal for an offense charged to have been committed in the county of St. Louis, if there is evidence to reasonably satisfy the jury that the crime was committed in the city of St. Louis, the venue will be sufficiently established. 2. Practice, criminal — Crime must be shown to be committed within the county — Question of venue for the jury. — In criminal trials it must always appear that the offense of which the prisoner is convicted is within the jurisdiction of the court. But the question of venue is always a question of fact, and it may be proved like any other fact. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense for which the prisoner is indicted was committed in the county where he is tried, it is sufficient.
Summary
Appeal from Si. Louis Criminal Court. The prisoner is charged with committing the offense within the county of St. Louis. The proof shows that it was committed in Mullanphy street, but does not show that this street was in the county of St. Louis. Hence the jurisdiction of the court is not shown. (See Const. U. S., art. I, § 6; Mo. Bill of Rights, art. I, § 18 ; -Ewell v. State, 6 Yerg. 364; Hite v. State, 9 Yerg. 357; Yates v. State, 10 Yerg. 549; 1 Chit. 178; 2 Leach, 637 ; 2 East, 605 ; 2 Russ. Crimes, 799-800 ; Bish. Cr. Law, 552-67, § 8; Rose. Crim. Ev., tit. Yenue, 250-259; 1 Whart. Cr. Law, § 601; Rex v. Crocker, 2 N. P. 87; Anderson v. State, 14 Tex. 583 ; People v. Slater, 5 Hill, 401; 1 Phil. Ev. 206; Morsley v. State, 7 Blackf. 424; Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375.) The jurisdiction of the Criminal Court extends over the county of St. Louis. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 894.) The Legislature has recognized the city of St. Louis as being within the county of St. Louis. (Gen. Stat. 1865, p. 894, § 17; Wagn. Stat. ch. 142, § 15.) It was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not the defendant committed the offense as laid in the indictment, and the instructions of tlie court presented the issue clearly and perspicuously before them. The rule has been promulgated time and again in the decisions of this' court — a rule sustained by extensive and incontrovertible authority — that it will not disturb the verdict of- a jury unless manifest injustice and wrong have been done. (State v. Cruise, 16 Mo. 611; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340 ; Hartt v. Leavenworth, 11 Mo. 629 ; .Campbell v. Hood, 6 Mo. 218 ; McLean v. Bragg, 30 Mo. 26; State v. Burnside, 37 Mo. 343.) •'

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

Opinion of the Court — Wagner

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

Wagner, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The accused was indicted, in connection with Patrick Duffy and Mary Ostermeyer, for murder in the first degree, convicted and sentenced to be executed. No exceptions were taken or saved to any ruling of the court on the trial, and an examination of the record has fully convinced us that the action of the court was entirely proper and unexceptionable. The only point now raised is that the record does not show that the crime was committed in St. Louis county. The witnesses all speak of the murder as taking place on Mullanphy street, but it is not expressly stated anywhere' that Mullanphy street is in the county or city of St. Louis.

The indictment avers and charges that the crime was committed in the county of St. Louis, and the court instructed the jury that if they believed and found from the evidence that in the county of St. Louis the defendant did assault and kill Ostermeyer, then they should find him guilty, etc. From this instruction the jury must have found that the killing occurred at the place laid in the indictment. It was a conceded fact in the Criminal Court; the witnesses spoke of the street, and there was a diagram exhibited showing the location of the house and how situated.

The jurisdiction of the Criminal Court extends over the county of St. Louis, and the Legislature has recognized the city of St. Louis as being within the county of St. Louis. If there was evidence to reasonably satisfy the jury that the crime was committed in the city, that was sufficient. In criminal trials it must always be shown that the offense of which the prisoner is convicted *440 was committed within*the jurisdiction of the court. (Gordon v. The State, 4 Mo. 375 .)

But the question of venue or-jurisdiction is always a question of fact, and may be proved like any other fact. If the evidence raises a violent presumption that the offense for which the prisoner is indicted was committed in the county where he was tried, it is sufficient. (1 Whart. Cr. Law, § 601.) We cannot discover any such error as would justify us in disturbing the-verdict.

Judgment 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 24 cases

View all citing references →
1881–1882: 21883–1884: 11885–1886: 21887–1888: 11891–1892: 21895–1896: 21901–1902: 21905–1906: 11907–1908: 21909–1910: 21911–1912: 31923–1924: 11931–1932: 11945–1946: 12007–2008: 118812026peak 1911 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Schatt107 S.W. 10 (Mo. Ct. App. 1908)
  2. State v. McGinnis76 Mo. 326 (1882)
  3. State v. Roach64 Mo. App. 413 (1896)
  4. State v. Taylor238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. 2007)
  5. State v. Holland189 S.W.2d 989 (Mo. 1945)
  6. State v. Sanders106 Mo. 188 (1891)

Most recent

  1. State v. Taylor238 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. 2007)
  2. State v. Holland189 S.W.2d 989 (Mo. 1945)
  3. People v. Koegel262 Ill. App. 596 (1931)
  4. McFetridge v. State231 P. 405 (Wyo. 1924)
  5. State v. Kincaid124 P. 684 (Wash. 1912)
  6. Union Pacific Railroad v. State130 N.W. 277 (Neb. 1911) · Dissent

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gordon v. State, 4 Mo. 375 (1836) 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