The State v. Wade
| Decision Date | 26 March 1901 |
| Citation | 61 S.W. 800,161 Mo. 441 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. WADE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. J. Broaddus, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Farris & Son and Cravens and W. J. Courtney for appellant.
(1) Instruction numbered 16, in bill of exceptions, is erroneous and should have permitted the jury to have passed upon the present question of sanity even though they may have found and believed that the defendant was not insane at the time of the killing. The court had refused the application made by Flemmon Wade, a third party, but authorized by the law to act, asking that the question of present insanity be submitted to a jury, which was not granted if not submitted to a jury before trial, the court to have permitted the determining of such question to ascertain whether the defendant was capable of now being tried and of entering his plea to the issues tendered by the indictment. (2) The court erred in not granting instruction on questions of insanity and self-defense, which was to the effect that such defenses were consistent.
This is the second appearance of this cause in this court, the judgment of the lower court having been reversed on a former occasion, because of the insufficiency of the indictment. [147 Mo. 73, 47 S.W. 1070.] Since then, the cause has again been tried, resulting in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, and affixing the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of fifteen years.
Of its own motion, the trial court cut down this term to ten years. The homicide charged in the indictment was the killing of Alexander Schamel, by shooting him with a shotgun. The plea was "not guilty," and this was supported by evidence tending strongly to show insanity of defendant when the act was done; self-defense was also interposed. And there was evidence that while in the State penitentiary he was transferred to the insane ward of that institution, where he remained some weeks, when the judgment in his cause having been reversed, he was returned to Clay county, and a new indictment having been returned, he was again put upon his trial. The State is not represented in this court.
It is asserted for the defense that defendant made application through another, for a jury to pass upon the question of whether defendant was insane, and so incapable of making his proper and necessary defense against the accusation contained in the indictment. And, it is also asserted that the court refused to grant a jury to pass upon the question of defendant's present insanity, and that the report of certain physicians appointed by the court to pass upon defendant's present insanity would be found on certain pages of the transcript. If the trial court ruled improperly on the subject of the application mentioned,...
To continue reading
Request your trial