State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. LEWIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
C. O. Bishop with Smith & Krauthoff for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
We have examined the record in this case, in connection with the opinion of the court of appeals, with the care due to a case upon the determination of which depends the continuance of a human life. It is the third time this case has been before us on an appeal by the defendant, in each instance from a judgment of the criminal court of St. Louis, condemning him to be hanged for having murdered his wife on the 13th day of October, 1876. It is unnecessary to state the facts; they are sufficiently presented in the opinion of the St. Louis court of appeals and clearly establish the guilt of the defendant. The proceedings on the trial now brought before us for review, appear to be formal and regular, and the opinion of the court of appeals satisfactorily disposes of all the questions presented in the earnest and ingenious argument of defendant's counsel, save three, which were doubtless not specially brought to the attention of the court of appeals.
It appears from the evidence that the defendant attempted to cut the deceased with a knife during the night preceding the evening on which he murdered her; and on the morning of the day on which she was killed, the deceased went into the room of an acquaintance near by and exhibited a cut in her dress, near the left thigh. This person testified to seeing the deceased, at the time stated, with a dress on which had the appearance of having been cut with a knife. What the deceased said at that time was excluded by the court; what the witness saw was admitted, and we think properly. The defendant could not be connected with the cut in the dress by the statements of the deceased; but it would have been competent to connect him therewith by other evidence, direct or circumstantial. Messner v. People, 45 N. Y. 1.
One William Bell, a witness for the State, was asked on cross-examination, whether he had not been convicted of grand larceny and sent to the penitentiary, and he answered in the negative. The defendant afterward offered to prove by one Tom Williams that he had seen William Bell in the penitentiary at Jefferson City as a convict. This testimony was objected to and excluded by the court, and rightly so on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Neal
...since been held the record must affirmatively show the defendant requested and was denied the privilege of being present. See State v. Lewis, 80 Mo. 110, 112; State Warner, 165 Mo. 399, 413, 65 S.W. 584, 587, 88 Am. St. Rep. 422; State v. Carroll, 333 Mo. 558, 563 (3), 62 S.W.2d 863, 866(2)......
-
Davis v. State
...a proceeding during the trial within the meaning of the statute. The point was again presented to the supreme court of Missouri in State v. Lewis, 80 Mo. 110, and court held that unless the record affirmatively showed that the prisoner was denied the right of being present when his motion f......
-
Davis v. State
...a proceeding during the trial, within the meaning of the statute. The point was again presented to the supreme court of Missouri in State v. Lewis, 80 Mo. 110; and the court held that, unless the record affirmatively showed that the prisoner was denied the right of being present when his mo......
-
State v. Carroll
...were overruled. This is no ground for reversal unless it is affirmatively shown that the defendant was denied that privilege. [State v. Lewis, 80 Mo. 110.] The record shows arraignment and plea of not guilty; that the trial proceeded on the indictment, the defendant being present and the ju......