State v. West
| Decision Date | 26 June 1900 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEST, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pettis Circuit Court. -- Hon. Geo. F. Longan, Judge.
Affirmed.
H. B Shain, Jno. D. Dale and John Cashman for appellant.
(1) The trial court committed error in overruling defendant's motion to quash the indictment. 21 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law pp. 248, 249; People v. Vice, 21 Cal. 344; 1 Bishop. 426; 2 Wharton, 2705; 1 Wharton, 290, 293; Com. v Clifford, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 215. (2) The trial court committed error in not instructing on the whole case. State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; State v. Lake, 107 Mo. 147. (a) In not instructing on what facts if proven established criminal intent. State v. Johnson, 111 Mo. 578. (b) In not instructing on intoxication as affecting intent. Roberts v. People, 19 Mich. 401; People v. Eastman, 14 N.Y. 562; People v. Walker, 38 Mich. 156. (3) The trial court committed error in not giving instructions on the question of consent as a defense. 2 Archbald Cr. Pr. and Pl., p. 1181; 2 Russell on Crimes, p. 190; 3 Chitty on Crim. Law, p. 914; 1 Wharton's Crim. Law, p. 751; Ibid., 1262, 1540, 1802, 306 and 392; Com. v. Hollister, 157 Pa. 13, more fully reported in 25 Lawyer's Reports annotated, p. 349; Saunders v. People, 38 Mich. 218; Conner et al. v. People, 18 Col. 373; People v. Murphy, 93 Mich. 41; Pigg v. State, 43 Tex. 198; O'Brion v. State, 6 Tex.App. 665; People v. McCord, 76 Mich. 200; People v. Clough, 59 Cal. 438; Allen v. State, 40 Ala. 334; Reg. v. Johnson, Cor. & M. 218; Kemp v. State, 11 Humph. 320; State v. Chambers, 6 Ala. 855; State v. Adams, 115 N.C. 775; Zink v. People, 77 N.Y. 114; U. S. v. Whittier, 5 Dill. 35; State v. Duncan, 8 Rob. (La.) 1562.
Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) No error was committed by the trial court in overruling defendant's motion to quash the indictment. The indictment in this case was based upon the provisions of the act of 1895 (Laws 1895, p. 160), in relation to the crime of train robbing. It is only necessary that the indictment shall contain enough to notify the defendant of the crime charged and follow the language of the statute as near as may be. State v. Clinton, 67 Mo. 380. In the case of forgery the intent to defraud may be charged generally without charging an intent to cheat and defraud any particular person. State v. Phillips, 78 Mo. 49; State v. Yerger, 86 Mo. 33; State v. Rucker, 93 Mo. 88; State v. Jackson, 89 Mo. 561; State v. Flora, 109 Mo. 293; State v. Warren, 109 Mo. 430; State v. Rowlen, 114 Mo. 629. (2) Objection is also made that the court should have instructed upon the question of intoxication as affecting intent. It is insisted by him that he was intoxicated at the time the act of stopping the train was committed, and in no condition to form an intent to commit the crime of robbery. Authorities unanimously concur upon the proposition, that voluntary intoxication or drunkenness at the time the criminal act is committed constitutes no defense or excuse therefor. State v. Harlow, 21 Mo. 446; State v. Dearing, 65 Mo. 530; State v. Eddings, 71 Mo. 545; State v. Ramsey, 82 Mo. 131. It has sometimes been said by courts that intoxication instead of being an excuse for crime should be considered as an aggravation of the same. 4 Blackstone's Com., sec. 25; State v. Smith, 49 Conn. 376; State v. Beck, 76 Ga. 453; 2 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 374; People v. Upton, 109 Ill. 169. (3) Bishop's Crim. Law, sec. 262; Wharton's Crim. Law, sec. 149; Thompson v. State, 81 Am. Dec. 364. The authorities on this subject, so far as we have been able to observe, seem to hold that so long as the prosecutor did not induce the original intent, and only provided for its execution after the intent was formed, the criminality of the defendant will not be questioned. State v. Covington, 2 Bail. 569; State v. Alexander, 12 Tex. 540.
The defendant with Eli J. Stubblefield was indicted at the February term, 1899, of the Pettis Circuit Court. He was duly arraigned and pleaded "not guilty." A severance was granted and each tried separately. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for ten years. He appeals.
The indictment sought to charge an offense under the act of April 2, 1895 (Laws of Missouri, 1895, p. 160), entitled "An Act in relation to the crime of train robbing and to provide a penalty therefor."
The indictment is in these words:
The evidence tended to prove the following facts: The Missouri Pacific Railway Company is a railroad corporation duly organized under the laws of Missouri, and on the 29th day of November, 1898, and for a long time prior thereto and ever since owned and operated a railroad from Sedalia, in Pettis county, to Kansas City, in Jackson county, known as the Lexington branch of the Missouri Pacific Railway and ran its trains over said branch. Georgetown, Hughesville and Houstonia are stations on said railroad in Pettis county.
On the night of November 29, 1898, the regular passenger train from Kansas City to Sedalia was stopped a short distance east of Hughesville, in Pettis county, by a danger signal, the waving of a white light across the railroad track. The lantern was waved by a masked man who held the lantern in one hand and a revolver in the other. The division superintendent, Mr. Hopkins, had been apprised that an attempt to rob the train would occur that night and in pursuance of this information had caused a guard to be placed on the train. When the danger signal was displayed the engineer of the train responded with two short blasts and immediately shut off the steam and applied the air to the brakes and stopped the train. As the engine approached, the man who was waving the lantern sprang to the left side of the track. One of the guards shot at him and he shot at the guards on the engine cab almost simultaneously.
As soon as the train stopped, the guards jumped off and pursued the parties who stopped the train. The defendant West was arrested in the adjoining field.
Thomas Furlong, who was in charge of the detectives, testified that he saw a man standing upon the bank of the cut above the place where the man waved the lantern was standing, and this man also was shooting at the train. This man ran across the field and the guards followed and arrested him. He identified the prisoner as James West, the defendant. When arrested he had two handkerchiefs around his neck, a sack in his overcoat pocket and was armed with a revolver and had a number of cartridges. The prisoner was brought to the train by the guards and laid on the floor of the baggage car, and was identified by Barnett, one of the guards. While lying there he was approached by Furlong and asked if he knew him. The prisoner answered, "You are DeLong aren't you?" and then said "How did I get here?" He was brought to Sedalia on the train. Having heard that the defendant was feigning drunkenness, Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Manley went to the prisoner and bent over him, close to his face to ascertain if he had been drinking, but they could discover no smell of liquor on him.
The other robber escaped from the scene of the "hold up," but about half past twelve o'clock that night was arrested by the officers in Sedalia and proved to be Stubblefield. He was wounded in the right elbow and his clothing was shot. He was disguised.
E. H. Adams testified that he had lived in Sedalia for 17 years. Had been employed by the Missouri Pacific Railway as fireman and engineer for 15 and 16 years, but at the time of the "hold up" was not working for the company but had an office in Sedalia. West and Stubblefield were both old employees of the Missouri Pacific. West the defendant, had been employed as engineer for 8 or 10 years. Sometime in the latter part of June or first of July, 1898 he came to the office of witness Adams and said he was in need of money and intended to hold up a Missouri Pacific train on the Lexington branch. He said he had men who would help him -- Eli Stubblefield, Joseph West and Robert Cunningham. Later on Joe West was at a conference and Stubblefield was...
To continue reading
Request your trial