State v. Huting

• Decision Date: 31 July 1855
• Citation: 21 Mo. 464
• Parties: THE STATE, Respondent, v. HUTING, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

21 Mo. 464

THE STATE, Respondent,

v.HUTING, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

July Term, 1855.

1. Where a motion to discharge a prisoner, under the 25th section of the 6th article of the act concerning practice and proceedings in criminal cases, (R. C. 1845,) for a failure to bring him to trial before the end of the second term after indictment found, is overruled by the inferior court, the facts upon which the motion is based must be proved and the evidence saved by bill of exceptions, so that the supreme court can see affirmatively that the delay was not for one of the causes which would prevent it from operating as a discharge, or it will be presumed that the motion was properly overruled.

2. In considering whether a prisoner is entitled to a discharge under the section of the statute above referred to, a term which lapses or which is adjourned in the midst of the trial, by reason of the illness of the judge, is not to be counted; nor is a term at which there was a trial and a failure of the jury to agree to be counted, the constitution authorizing a continuance in such a case; nor is a term, which is by law limited to six days, to be counted, where, on the fourth day, the case was continued, because up to that time only five jurors had been empannelled; nor are special terms to be counted. The statute was intended to operate only when there is some laches on the part of the state.

3. Partial insanity is no excuse for a crime, if the defendant was capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, in regard to the act charged to be criminal.

4. A party charged with murder, who admits the killing, and relies upon the defense of insanity, must make it out to the satisfaction of the jury, and is not entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt as to his sanity.

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

Jamison and Jones, for appellant, in their brief, insisted that the Circuit Court should have instructed the jury to acquit if they had a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the defendant.

Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the State, in his brief, argued the single point that the Circuit Court did not err in overruling the motion to discharge the defendant on account of the delay in bringing him to trial; and that the onus was on the defendant of showing that the delay was not for one of the causes preventing a discharge.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

At the September term of the Circuit Court, within and for the county of Montgomery, in the year A. D. 1851, John Huting, the defendant, was indicted for the murder of Caroline Scholton. The prisoner was brought into court from the custody of the jailor. The court assigned counsel to assist the prisoner in his defence, and also appointed an interpreter, who was duly sworn as such in the cause. The prisoner was then arraigned, and plead not guilty, and the trial was continued until April term following.

The illness of the judge prevented the meeting of the court at the regular term in April, 1852, and consequently there was no April term of the court.

The trial of this case commenced at the September term, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-two, and the record shows that it was not completed, owing to the illness of the judge of the court; that the court discharged the jurors, and remanded the prisoner, and continued the case.

The case was again called at the April term, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-three, and a jury was empannelled and the case was submitted to the jury, but they were unable to agree in their verdict, and were by the court discharged. The prisoner was again remanded, and the case continued.

At the September term, A. D. 1853, the case was called up for trial, and a part of the jury was sworn, and on the fourth day of the term, the court being unable to complete and make up the jury, the jurors who had been sworn were discharged, the prisoner remanded to jail, and the case continued.

At the April term, A. D. 1854, the case was again called up for trial; the prisoner, by his counsel, moved the court to discharge him, under the 25th section of the 6th article of the act concerning criminal proceedings, because the prisoner had not been brought to trial in accordance with the provisions of said section. This motion was overruled, the defendant excepted, and filed his bill of exceptions.

The prisoner was then tried and found guilty of murder in the first degree; judgment was rendered on the verdict. The prisoner moved for a new trial; also, in arrest of judgment. These motions being overruled, he brings the case here by appeal; the execution of the judgment being, by order of the Circuit Court, suspended, until the hearing and decision of the case upon the appeal in this court.

The following are the material facts given in evidence, as appears by the record: Adelhied Scholton, a witness for the State, sworn, said that she had known the prisoner about five years; that on the 16th day of June, A. D. 1851, the deceased, Caroline Scholton, came into her room and told her she had been out where John was, and he had told her he wanted to tell her something; that he had loved her, and wanted her to take a letter from him, and that she told him she would not hear him, nor take his letter; but that he (defendant) must wait and say whatever he wanted to say in the presence of the family; that witness told her to go back and hear what John had to say, and receive his letter; that deceased went back and told John she would take the letter, and hear what he had to say; that John told her he would keep the letter safe; that deceased then returned and sat down on a trundle bed; that soon after, as witness came into the house, the defendant had the gun in his hand, in the porch, fixing the priming; that witness went into the house and sat down near the deceased on the same bed, with her little child between them, and soon thereafter the defendant came to the door, with the gun in his hand, and says, “““ this is for your pride;” that deceased begged him not to shoot, and witness did the same, but that defendant shot her; first, with one barrel, and then with the other; that deceased fell back, and that witness took up the child and ran to the house of a neighbor, (Eli Johnson.) As witness went off, she saw defendant throw down the gun and go to the stable lot. After he got to the lot, she heard the small report of a gun or pistol in the lot, and heard some one hallooing, which she took to be John. As she left, she saw blood on her child's face, which she washed off. The witness said that the defendant had lived with us about five years, and the deceased had lived with us about one and a half years, and both were living with us at the time of the killing. The deceased was about twenty-one years old; that there was no one about the house except those named by her before; that defendant had always been a quiet, peaceable man, up to the killing, so far as she knew.

The State then introduced George Sheirekamp, who stated, on Sunday, which was the day before the killing, he went to Mr. Scholton's to put in some windows for him; that after working a while, he and John started down the river to see some fish hooks they had set out; that as they went along, defendant said he had for a long while wanted to see him; that he loved Caroline Scholton much; that the first chance he got, he would ask her to have him; if she refused, he intended to shoot her dead and then kill himself; that he (the witness) told him he had been young and loved the girls, but that he never thought of such a thing. Defendant said that witness had told him of that often enough; that he (witness) had never loved girls much, but he should hear more about it. Caroline was killed on the Monday, and when witness was making her coffin at Mr. Quick's, on Tuesday, the defendant was lying on the bed, and asked witness if he (defendant) was too mean for him to come and see any more. He (witness) then went to defendant and asked him whether he shot deceased by accident or aforethought, and that witness replied he did it aforethought or willingly. On cross-examination, this witness said, he did not tell the family of Scholton what John (the defendant) had said about the deceased, when they went back from the fish hooks, because he thought John was jesting. At the time witness saw John at Quick's, he had his left arm bandaged and a poultice on his breast. Witness cannot recollect anything else that occurred on the day they went to see the fish hooks: he thought defendant jesting when he spoke as he did. Witness spoke of the first conversation he had with the defendant as soon as he heard of the murder.

James Nunnally, a witness for the State, testified that he arrested the defendant, and after telling him the charge made against him, he asked him whether he was guilty or not; the defendant replied guilty, and said he was sorry for it. Witness said he (witness) explained to him the nature of the charge made against him, and he said he was guilty, and that he had killed deceased because she would not accede to his proposition.

Mr. Barking was then introduced as a witness for the State, who said, that, on the day of the killing, I went to Scholton's and found the deceased had fallen off from the bed and lying rather on her back, with seventeen buckshot holes around her right eye and forehead; the shot had passed through her head, and some of the brains protruded at the back of her head. Cross-examined, said he saw the defendant on the day after the killing had taken place: he labored under much excitement; showed much emotion; his chin quivered and he wept: he said he was sorry he had committed the act. Witness saw a wound on the stomach of the defendant, that appeared to be produced by powder; it was black. Defendant also had a cut across the left wrist; this cut was bandaged, and the wound upon the stomach had a...