State v. Ginnings
| Decision Date | 10 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54932,54932,2 |
| Citation | 466 S.W.2d 675 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Homer GINNINGS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., J. Michael Jarrard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Orville C. Winchell, Lebanon, for appellant.
Appellant, Homer Ginnings, was convicted of murder in the first degree by a jury in the Circuit Court of Laclede County, Missouri, and his punishment under the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, V.A.M.S. § 556.280, was assessed at life imprisonment. Following rendition of judgment and imposition of sentence, an appeal was perfected to this Court. We affirm.
In early 1968, appellant spent some time in a hospital in Iowa. During his absence, the deceased, Lawrence Runge, lived in appellant's house in Lebanon with appellant's wife and children. After appellant returned home, around Thanksgiving, Runge remained in the house. There is evidence of ill-feeling, arguments, and fights between the two men.
On December 6, 1968, according to the testimony of appellant's three children, he came home from work about 5 or 5:30 p.m., left and returned with beer, and left again and returned with a rifle. After he returned with the rifle, he sat down on the couch behind Lawrence Runge, who was sitting in a chair watching television. The children then heard a shot, rushed to the living room, saw appellant lay the rifle down, and saw Runge's head slumped over in the chair. The children then went to a neighbor's house to call their mother and the police.
Appellant testified at the trial. His account of the shooting is as follows:
'Q (By Mr. Winchell) Now, Mr. Ginnings, on the night of December 6, were you in the living room or the front room of your house?
'A The living room, called the living room.
'Q And were you examining it and--
'A Yes, see those marks on there?
'Q You are referring to the gun stock?
'Q All right now, had you ever heard Mr. Runge make any obscene or vulgar statements to your children?
'A Oh, he blackguarded all the time.
'Q Now in what manner did he use the blackguard or vulgar language and to what children?
'A You mean this night that this happened?
'Q She is fifteen?
'A She was right near fifteen years old--she was back here putting the kids to bed.
'Q All right; what did he say?
'Q What did you say after he made that comment?
'A I said, watch your damn mouth, and he said, I will say anything I damn want to, that is when I grabbed the gun.
'Q What did he do?
'A He started to get up, whirl like that, and I pulled the gun up and through the excitement the gun went off; I caught him back here somewhere.
'A I was afraid he would chop me up, I knew he would.
The points raised on appeal are: (1) that the trial court erred in applying the Habitual Criminal Act; (2) that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence of statements made by appellant to the arresting officers while he was without counsel; and (3) that the trial court erred in failing to instruct on manslaughter.
On the record in this case, we hold: (1) that the Habitual Criminal Act was properly applied because the evidence shows appellant had been 'convicted previously of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, that he was sentenced thereon and subsequently was imprisoned * * *.' (State v. Blackwell, Mo.Sup., 459 S.W.2d 268, 272); (2) that the trial court did not err, after holding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Eiland
...encounter which excites passion beyond control or of culpable negligence, there is no duty to instruct on manslaughter. State v. Ginnings, 466 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Mo.1971); State v. Lamborn, 452 S.W.2d 216 (Mo.1970); State v. Hunter, 444 S.W.2d 392 (Mo.1969); State v. Taylor, 309 S.W.2d 621, 6......
-
Ginnings v. State, 57791
...an his punishment was assessed at life imprisonment. On appeal to this Court, the judgment of conviction was affirmed. State v. Ginnings, 466 S.W.2d 675 (Mo.1971). Appellant thereafter filed a motion to vacate under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., and an evidentiary hearing was held on October 4, 197......
-
State v. Myers, 9138
...under the Habitual Criminal Act is properly exercised only where a defendant previously has been convicted of a felony (State v. Ginnings, Mo., 466 S.W.2d 675, 677(1); State v. Briggs, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 361, 362; State v. Garrett, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 116, 120(7)) and has been 'charged with having......
-
State v. Robinson
...nor was there any evidence which would have mandated such an instruction prior to March 1, 1975. See also, State v. Ginnings, 466 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Mo.1971) (concurring opinion); State v. Foran, 255 Mo. 213, 164 S.W. 215(4) (Mo.1914) (overruled on other grounds in State v. Clough, 327 Mo. 70......