State v. Martin

Citation74 Mo. 547
PartiesTHE STATE v. MARTIN, Appellant.
Decision Date31 October 1881
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Laclede Circuit Court.--HON. R. W. FYAN, Judge.

REVERSED.

Holt, Moore, Patterson & Mitchell for appellant.

D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, and E. B. Kellerman, Prosecuting Attorney of Laclede county, for the State.

NORTON, J.

The defendant was jointly indicted with Sarah I. Martin, for the murder of George Mizer, at the August term, 1879, of the Laclede county circuit court.

1. CRIMINAL LAW: evidence of other offenses.

At the February term, 1880, of said court, he was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. Motions for new trial and in arrest having been overruled, he brings the cause here by appeal, and assigns various grounds for error, one of which is, that the court, over the objection of defendant, allowed the State to read in evidence two indictments against the defendant charging him with felonious assaults upon one Jesse Prewitt. The offenses charged in the indictment in no way, so far as the record shows, had any connection with the offense for which the defendant was being tried. This evidence was calculated to prejudice the jury, and to put the character of defendant in issue, without any such issue having been tendered by him. The rule is, that the character of a person criminally charged cannot be assailed by the State until the accused has offered proof as to character. Under the ruling of this court in the cases of State v. Reavis, 71 Mo. 420; State v. Hart, 66 Mo. 208, and under the rule laid down in Wharton on Crim. Plead. and Ev., (6 Ed.) pp. 635, 636, 647, 648, error was committed in admitting the evidence. State v. Creson, 38 Mo. 372.

2. ____: witnesses

The assistant prosecuting attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, said: “That the co-defendant is a competent witness in behalf of the defendant, as well as the defendant, under the laws of this State, and the attorneys for defendant know it.” He also proceeded to comment at length upon the fact that Sarah I. Martin, who was jointly indicted with defendant, was a competent witness, and, though present during the whole trial, was not put upon the stand to contradict statements made by other witnesses in regard to matters occurring in her presence, and that defendant dared not put her on the stand, etc. These remarks were objected to on the ground that the co-defendant was not examined because she was not a competent witness. The objection was overruled, the court observing that the co-defendant was a competent witness and the attorney had a right to comment on the fact that she had not been put upon the stand by defendant.

This, we think, was a clear misapprehension of the law. In the case of the State v. Roberts, 15 Mo. 29, it was held that when two persons are jointly indicted, neither is admissible as a witness for his co-defendant, and this rule equally applies whether they are tried separately or jointly. The witness is incompetent,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • State v. Levy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 21 Enero 1904
    ......People, 18 Ill.App. (18 Bradw.) 508;. Long v. State, 56 Ind. 182, 26 Am. Rep. 19;. State v. Graham, 62 Iowa 108, 17 N.W. 192; State. v. Balch, 31 Kan. 465, 2 P. 609; State v. Tennyson, 42 Kan. 330, 22 P. 429; Commonwealth v. Scott, 123 Mass. 239, 25 Am. Rep. 87; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; People v. Doyle, 58 Hun,. 535, 12 N.Y.S. 836; Hunt v. State, 28 Tex. App. 149,. 19 Am. St. Rep. 815, 12 S.W. 737; McPherson v. State. (Tex. App.), 15 S.W. 174; Johnson v. State, 31. Tex. Cr. Rep. 464, 20 S.W. 980; Richardson v. State, . 33 Tex. Cr. Rep. 518, 27 S.W. 139; ......
  • State v. Spinks, 36208.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 21 Febrero 1939
    ...that defendant was guilty of independent, separate and unrelated crimes other than the one upon which he was being tried. State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Reavis, 71 Mo. 419; State v. Wigger, 93 S.W. 390, 196 Mo. 90; State v. Snow, 252 S.W. 629; State v. Bowman, 199 S.W. 164, 272 Mo. 4......
  • State v. Willard, 36915.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Septiembre 1940
    ...Baird, 195 S.W. 1010, 271 Mo. 9; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 795, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Shipley, 74 S.W. 612, 174 Mo. 512; State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Creson, 38 Mo. 372. (3) It is error for a prosecuting attorney to ask questions which he knows are improper and will prejudice the ......
  • The State v. Beckner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 6 Marzo 1906
    ......Clinton, 67 Mo. 380; State v. Miller, 71 Mo. 590; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 133;. State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 486; State v. Parker, 96 Mo. 391; State v. Shroyer, 104 Mo. 447; State v. Day, 100 Mo. 242; State v. Raven, 115 Mo. 423; State v. McLain, 92 Mo.App. 464; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. 514; Sitton v. Grand Lodge, 84 Mo.App. 208; State v. Weeden, . 133 Mo. 82; State v. Pollard, 174 Mo. 608; State. v. May, 142 Mo. 150; State v. Sibley, 132 Mo. 102. (2) But conceding that this testimony was improper. before defendant opened that question, yet defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT