Case ID: mo_237/html/0204-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FERRISS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE v. LUTHER HERRICK, Appellant.
    Division Two,
    November 14, 1911.
    APPEAL: No Bill of Exceptions. Where there is no bill of exceptions, there is nothing for review on appeal but the record proper, and if it is complete, valid and sufficient, the judgment, convicting defendant of a felony, will be affirmed.
    Appeal from Lewis Circuit Court. — Hon. Charles D. Stewart, Judge.
    Affirmed. .
    
      Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, Campbell Cummings and John M. Dawson, Assistant Attorneys-General, for the State.
    (1) The information is duly verified, valid and sufficient. It is a copy of the indictment approved in State v. O’Keefe, 141 Mo. 272. This form of information has been approved by this court many times. State v. Primm, 98 Mo.- 368; Kelley’s Crim. Law and Prac., see. 555. It adequately individuates the offense. See. 4478, R. S. 1909; State v. Marshall, 137 Mo. 463; State v. Kyle, 231 Mo. 59; State v. Mitchell, 229 Mo. 683; State v. Walker, 232 Mo. 252; State v. Stanley, 232 Mo. 23; State v. Knock, 142 Mo. 515; State v. Hall, 164 Mo. 528. (2) Appellant was arraigned, represented by counsel and entered his plea of not guilty. The jury were regularly impaneled, challenged and sworn. Sec. 22, art. 2, Const. Mo. (3) The verdict is certain, definite and responsive to the issues joined. The judgment of sentence is in due form and in accordance with the verdict. Allocution was pronounced by the court, and no exceptions can be made to same. (4) There is nothing before this court but the record proper. It is regular in form and substance, clearly shows a valid information, the arraignment of appellant, the plea of not guilty, that he was represented by counsel, that the jury were regularly impaneled, challenged and sworn, that the verdict returned by the jury was responsive to the issues, and that the judgment of sentence is in accordance with the verdict. Under this statement of facts, there is nothing for this court to do but to affirm the cause. State v. Harris, 216 Mo. 392; State v. Moore, 203 Mo. 627; State ,v. Goehler, 193 Mo. 183.
   FERRISS, J.

At the' September term, 1909, of the circuit court of Lewis county, upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of said county, defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of-seducing, under promise of marriage, one Ruby Cason, an unmarried female of good repute, under twenty-one years of age. His punishment was assessed at nine months in the county jail and a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars. An appeal- from the judgment was granted to the St. Louis Court of Appeals, which court, not having jurisdiction of felony cases, ordered the cause transferred to this court, and it is now before us for review.

No bill of exceptions has been filed 'in this case, and there is therefore nothing before the court for review save the record proper. This we have carefully examined, and finding it to be complete, valid and sufficient in all respects, the judgment is affirmed.

Kennish, P. J., and Brown, J., concur..