State v. Umble

• Citation: 22 S.W. 378,115 Mo. 452
• Parties: STATE v. UMBLE.
• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

22 S.W. 378

115 Mo. 452

STATE v. UMBLE.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 2, 1893.

MURDER — DYING DECLARATIONS — TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICE.

1. Declarations made by decedent three days before death, after being informed by a physician that her entrails were cut, and after her repeated expressions of opinion that she could not recover, were admissible in evidence.

2. An accomplice is not an incompetent witness when he is indicted separately, and not jointly with defendant.

3. One indicted as an accessory after the fact is not an accomplice, so that his testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless corroborated.

4. Defendant and decedent were in love with the same man, and had met and threatened each other. Subsequently defendant armed herself with a knife, and started out to search for the man, expecting to find a woman with him. Defendant struck decedent, and the latter ran into an alley. The man held defendant until, as he said, he thought decedent had escaped, when he loosed defendant. She pursued and overtook decedent, who was unarmed, and cut her six or eight times. Decedent died from cuts in the abdomen. Held, that defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree.

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; Henry P. White, Judge.

Amanda Umble was convicted of murder in the first degree, and she appeals. Affirmed.

R. H. Mabury and H. Q. Bridges, for appellant. The Attorney General and Marcy K. Brown, for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

The defendant is a negro woman, and was indicted by the grand jury of Jackson county for the murder of another negro woman, Effie Jackson, on the 15th of May, 1891. She was assigned counsel by the criminal court, and they have shown a most commendable appreciation of the obligation resting upon the members of our profession, under such circumstances, by defending her case with painstaking care, and with much ability. After several continuances the cause was finally tried at the April term, 1892, and she was convicted of murder in the first degree. This state of facts is shown by the record. The defendant, Amanda Umble, and the deceased, Effie Jackson, were both enamored with one William Jackson, a young negro man, a porter in a saloon, in Kansas City. All parties lived in Kansas City. It appears that the defendant had learned that William was devoting much of his time to Effie, and she had met Effie on one occasion just prior to the killing, and hard words and threats had been passed and made by both. On the night of the 15th of May, William and Effie had been to a negro dance, and, on their return, stopped and drank a glass of beer in two different saloons. They then started together to Effie's home, and, when they had reached a point on Fifth and Holmes streets, they met the defendant, Amanda. She at once accosted William, and demanded to know of him where he had been, and said she had been looking for him. William testifies that Effie said to Amanda, "Is you and Will married?" to which defendant replied, "That's none of your business." He says that Effie then approached nearer where he and Amanda were standing, whereupon Amanda struck Effie, and Effie ran across the street and into an alley. He testifies further that he held Amanda until he thought Effie was entirely out of danger, when he turned her loose. She pursued Effie, and he saw her as she disappeared in the alley, in pursuit. He started to the saloon at which he was working, but in a moment he heard the cries and screams of Effie. He heard her scream, "Will, she is cutting me." He ran into the alley, and found defendant on top of Effie, with knife in hand. His story as to the scene in the alley is corroborated by a white lady, Mrs. Kintz, who lived on a lot adjoining the alley in which the stabbing was done. She testified she heard a terrible scream in the night, and thought possibly her dog had hurt some one, and went out into her yard, when she heard a second scream, and then some one said: "I have got you now for going with my fellow." She did not know the woman, but she heard the groans, and saw the patrol wagon come, and Dr. Iven get off. The evidence of the woman with whom defendant boarded showed that defendant left her house after 9 o'clock, saying she wanted to see William Jackson. She says she told her she was looking for him, and expected to find him with one of his women. The dying declarations of Effie Jackson also were admitted, and she said that defendant stabbed her in the alley. The police officer and the physicians testified that deceased was stabbed in five or six different places. The wound which killed her was a deep cut in the lower left portion of the abdomen. It cut through the abdominal wall into the intestines. This was about two inches long on the surface. This wound produced peritonitis and blood poisoning, from which the woman died during the succeeding week. The testimony shows defendant started out to hunt William Jackson that night with this knife concealed in the bosom of her dress. After the killing the defendant fled, and for several days eluded the officers. She testified on her own behalf, and admitted the killing, but claimed she did it in self-defense.

The evidence is uncontradicted that Effie Jackson had no arms upon her person that night, nor did she use any upon defendant. The trial court instructed the jury on murder in the first degree and self-defense. Its instructions in this respect are unexceptionable. The court also gave instructions on the credibility of the witnesses and reasonable doubt, to which there can be no reasonable objection. No point is made on any of them by the learned counsel for defendant, nor can we see any error in them. The errors assigned and relied upon are, briefly: First, that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the fourth degree; second, that William Jackson, having been indicted in a separate indictment as an accessory after the fact, was an incompetent witness; third, that the court erred in not giving an instruction, No. 7, prayed by defendant, upon the assumption that William Jackson was an accomplice, and that his testimony should be weighed with great caution, and was not of itself sufficient to convict; fourth, that the dying declarations of deceased were improperly admitted in evidence.

1. The dying declarations were made after deceased had been informed by her physician that her entrails were cut. She again and again expressed her opinion that she could never recover. These declarations were made after she had been taken to the hospital, and only three days before her death. They were most carefully limited to the fatal blow, and who inflicted it, and were clearly competent. State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 124; State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546; State v. Burns, 33 Mo. 490.

2. The defendant offered and read in evidence an indictment preferred by the grand jury of Jackson county, which charged William Jackson, separately, with being an accessory after the fact, to the murder of Effie Jackson by defendant. Defendant now claims that, by reason of said indictment and charge, William Jackson was rendered incompetent to testify in the case. Granting that William Jackson was an accomplice, inasmuch as he was not jointly indicted with defendant he was not rendered incompetent to testify by the separate indictment. State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95, 9 S. W. Rep. 646, and 11 S. W. Rep. 1133; 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 1167; Whart. Crim. Ev. § 439; McKenzie v. State, 24 Ark. 636.

3. Did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury, in behalf of defendant, "that William Jackson, by reason of the indictment against him as an...