4 S.W. 394 (Mo. 1887), State v. Blunt
|Citation:||4 S.W. 394, 91 Mo. 503|
|Opinion Judge:||Norton, C. J.|
|Party Name:||The State v. Blunt, Appellant|
|Attorney:||J. L. Hornsby for appellant. B. G. Boone, Attorney General, for the state.|
|Case Date:||May 16, 1887|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Missouri|
Appeal from St. Louis City Criminal Court. -- Hon. G. S. Van Wagoner, Judge.
(1) The court erred in refusing to allow defendant to show the fact that deceased had been prejudiced against defendant, and that, in consequence of such prejudice, she desired to rid herself of him, thereby showing a motive for the attack made by her upon him, and thus corroborating defendant's testimony. State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159. (2) The instruction of the court defining reasonable doubt was erroneous. State v. Leeper, 78 Mo. 470; State v. Owens, 79 Mo. 619; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644; State v. Smith, 21 Mo.App. 595. (3) The court should have given an instruction for murder in the second degree in view of defendant's testimony. State v. Wieners, 66 Mo. 13; State v. Robinson, 73 Mo. 306; State v. Curtis, 70 Mo. 599; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207; State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222; State v. Kotovsky, 74 Mo. 247; State v. Rose, 14 Mo.App. 567, 572; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 591.
(1) The only objection made or exception saved to the introduction or exclusion of evidence was to the refusal of the trial court to permit an answer to be made to this question asked a Mrs. Boas, by the defence: "Did you ever hear any one speak to Mary about her having acted foolishly in marrying a cripple like Blunt?" It is submitted, without the citation of authorities, that this question could not, by even a remote conjecture, have a shadow of relevancy to the material fact at issue, and its exclusion was, therefore, clearly proper. The case of the State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159, in regard to the admissibility of uncommunicated threats made by a deceased in regard to the accused, is cited by counsel for the defence, in support of the theory that the reply to the question above set forth was improperly excluded. We find no reasonable similarity between the case cited and the question asked. (2) The instruction as given in this case, on reasonable doubt, has received the express approval of this court in State v. Jones, 86 Mo. 627; and State v. Payton, 7 West. Rep. 129; S. C., 90 Mo. 220. (3) The court gave instructions defining murder in the first, and manslaughter in the second, degree, and the other formal and...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP