The opinion of the court was delivered by
At thе termination of a trial in a criminal action the appellant was by the verdict of a jury found guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the fourth degree. This verdict was returned in the district court of Finney county on the 23d day of November, 1904, and was approved by the court, and appellant was sentenced to the penitеntiary for a term not exceeding two years, the sentence being pronounced on December 31, 1904. From this judgment and sentence he appealed to this court, gave bond, and was given his liberty during the pendency of the appeal. While so at large he was again arrested, tried and convicted in the sаme court of the crime of burglary and larceny, alleged to have been committed on the 8th day of May, 1905. For the latter crime he was, on the 18th day of July, 1905, sentenced to confinement and hard labor in the penitentiary for a term nоt exceeding fifteen years, such imprisonment to commence at the еxpiration of his term in the former case. To test the validity of this judgment the appellant again comes to this court.
The appellant’s brief urges severаl trial errors, but the record is so lacking in statutory requirements that it was concеded on the presentation of the case that the only question for our consideration is whether this cumulative sentence can be sustained. This question must be answered in the affirmative. (1 Bish. New Crim. Law, § 953; Ex parte Turner,
It is contended that under the. common law thе rule is that successive sentences are concurrent and not cumulativе; that a cumulative sentence in this state must be justified, if at all, under section 5695 of the
The Missouri statute is substantially like our own, yet in Ex parte Turner, supra, we find а sentence sustained which is very analogous to the one at bar. In that cаse a prisoner before the expiration of his term escaped, аnd while at large committed another crime, for which he was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced while still under sentence for the first offense. The sеcond sentence was held valid, and it was also held that the term of imprisonment would commence at the expiration of the term under the first sentencе.
While our statute only provides for cumulative punishment of an offender who has been convicted of two or more offenses at the same term of сourt, it indicates the legislative policy and the justice of adapting the рunishment to the number as well as to the enormity of crimes committed by one pеrson, and, without regard to strict technicality, it is incumbent upon the courts of the stаte so to conform the procedure as to make the purposе of the law effective.
It is further contended that a sentence must be so dеfinite and certain that the prisoner and the officers responsible for his сustody may know when his term of imprisonment begins and when it ends without consulting any record except the commitment. This is desirable, but not paramount, and must yield so far as is necessary- for the- accomplishment of jus-tive. (See 19 Encyc. Pl. & Pr. 484.) In Ex parte Jackson,
The sentence in this case is as сertain as to the beginning and ending of the imprisonment imposed as was possible under the circumstances.
The judgment is affirmed.