State v. Stonum
State of Missouri v. James W. Stonum
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wagner, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was convicted of petit larceny, and the only point now relied upon in this court is, that no instructions were given by the court. In the State vs. Mathews ( 20 Mo., 55 ) it was expressly adjudged, that it is the duty of the court in all criminal cases to instruct the jury, as to the law; that if the instructions offered are objectionable, the court should proceed to give such as the law requires. Aside from this being binding authority, we think it is sustained by good reason. Juries should not be allowed to guess at the law in such cases. The court should instruct them as to their duties and as to the law in the case. Reversed and remanded. All the judges concur, except Judge'Vories, who is absent.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.