State v. Francis

• Decision Date: 04 December 1906
• Citation: 199 Mo. 671,98 S.W. 11
• Parties: STATE v. FRANCIS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

98 S.W. 11

199 Mo. 671

STATE v. FRANCIS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 4, 1906.

1. CRIMINAL LAW — CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE —SUFFICIENCY.

Where the evidence to sustain a conviction for murder is circumstantial, the facts and circumstances in evidence should be consistent with each other, and with the guilt of defendant, and inconsistent with any reasonable theory of his innocence, and of such a character as to produce on an unprejudiced mind a moral conviction of defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

2. HOMICIDE — COMMISSION OF OTHER OFFENSE.

In a prosecution for the murder of a girl who was pregnant when murdered, evidence tending to show that defendant was responsible for her condition does not show that he committed the murder.

3. SAME—MOTIVE—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In a prosecution for murder, evidence considered, and held not to prove a motive for the murder by defendant.

4. SAME—NEGATIVE EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

Failure to show motive for the crime in a prosecution for murder tends to show defendant's innocence.

5. HOMICIDE—COMMISSION OF ACT BY DEFENDANT —SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence in a prosecution for murder that defendant said between the 1st and the 15th of October that he "must hurry up and go and meet" decedent "between 5 and 6," has no tendency to prove that defendant met and murdered deceased on the 3d of the following November.

6. SAME—EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN VERDICT.

Evidence in a prosecution for murder in the first degree considered, and held insufficient to sustain conviction.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; Jno. W. Wofford, Judge.

Austin Francis was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.

Hairgrove & Stubbs, Willis H. Leavitt, and Oliver L. Wroughton, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry for the State.

BURGESS, P. J.

The defendant was charged in the information with murder, in the first degree, committed upon Winona Newton by administering to her carbolic acid, a deadly poison; and by choking and strangling her, and with assaulting her with dangerous and deadly weapons, to wit, a knife and large heavy stone. Upon arraignment, he pleaded "not guilty." A trial was had in the criminal court of Jackson county, at which he was convicted by the verdict of a jury of murder in the first degree. From the judgment of conviction and sentence of death, and from order denying him a new trial, and in overruling his motion in arrest, defendant has appealed to this court.

Defendant contends that the evidence did not warrant the verdict, and that numerous errors were committed upon the trial, which entitle him to a reversal of the judgment, upon the ground of the want of evidence to justify the verdict, and if this contention be not sustained, that the judgment be reversed, and a new trial awarded, because of numerous errors committed upon the trial. From an examination of this enormous record, we are convinced that, in order to reach a decision in the case, it will be only necessary to pass upon one question presented by the appeal, and that is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The evidence of the state was entirely circumstantial, and, in order to have justified the verdict, the facts and circumstances in evidence should be consistent with each other, and with the guilt of defendant and inconsistent with any reasonable theory of defendant's innocence. The theory of the state was that the defendant had been criminally intimate with the deceased, resulting in her pregnancy, and he, in order to cover up his crime, administered to her carbolic acid, a deadly poison, from the effects of which she immediately thereafter died. It was therefore necessary for the state to prove the body of the crime, or the fact that a murder had been committed by proof of the death of Winona Newton, by the criminal agency of the defendant. The death of Winona Newton being undisputed, the question for our consideration is whether the evidence was so strong and convincing as to bring the case within the rule announced, and that her death was the direct result of the criminal act of the defendant. Circumstantial evidence was sufficient for that purpose, if it was of such a character as to leave the inference of guilt the only reasonable inference to be deduced from the facts disclosed by the evidence. In order to justify the verdict of guilty, however, if the jury found the cause of death to have been through the administration of carbolic acid poison, the evidence must have pointed with conclusive force to that result, and that the defendant administered the poison to the deceased.

Winona Newton was, at the time of her death, about 15 years of age, and rather small for her age. She lived with her father, three brothers, and two younger sisters in the suburbs of Kansas City, near Fifty-Fifth street and College avenue. The mother had been declared insane, and sent to the lunatic asylum prior to the commission of the crime. The defendant was a single man, 21 years old, and by occupation a railroad detective. A short distance from the Newton home was a bridge over a little creek; this bridge was situated near Fifty-Fifth street and Walrond road. Prior to living at the above-named place, the father of the deceased resided near the home of defendant, or, rather, the home of defendant's mother. Defendant was apparently on friendly terms with deceased, especially after the time that she worked for and waited on defendant's mother during one or two sick spells. After deceased's father moved out on Fifty-Fifth street, deceased and defendant corresponded, often not signing their true names to the letters. Deceased had been taking medicine, and desired defendant to give her money with which to employ a physician. The letters indicate that defendant had been meeting deceased at night, clandestinely, and had failed to meet her after dark on one or two occasions. The evidence further showed that defendant went out to this little bridge twice after dark, and met deceased and her younger sister once. That defendant admitted that he had been back of deceased's house and near the coal shed one night when she and her father passed by. On other occasions, shortly before her death, deceased visited the switch yards, where defendant was employed, and spent considerable time in company with defendant, going into a house alone with him. To other railroad men defendant stated that deceased was his sister, his sister-in-law, his niece, his cousin, and his girl. Deceased was in poor health, having missed her menstruation twice; she suffered a good deal, and took such medicines as Peruna, Mountain Balm, and Lydia E. Pinkham's Female Complaint. On Friday, November 3, 1905, deceased spent most of the day in the house, lying down on a couch; and her father and one brother spent most of the day doing some work in the cellar. About 5:30, just before dark, deceased's sister, Ada, commenced to get supper, and one of the boys suggested to let deceased cook some corn starch. Deceased got up and walked out on the back porch, where she remained for about five minutes, and then returned to the kitchen. Ada suggested to the brother to get up off the lounge and let deceased lie down, but deceased replied that she did not care to lie down. Deceased then got a cup and put it under her arm, got a fascinator and placed it around her neck, looked at her father, and at Ada, and walked out of the kitchen onto the back porch. In a little while the corn starch was ready to be taken off the stove, and Ada stepped to the porch and called deceased, but received no reply. After waiting still longer, Ada went and called again; she returned to the house and told her father of her inability to find deceased. Then one of the boys was sent out in the yard; he looked around the coal shed, privy, and back yard, and returned with the word that deceased could not be found. Then the father and one of the boys went out with a lamp, made a careful examination of the premises, and went to two of the neighbors, met two or three people on the street, and went up to a store. After making inquiries there they returned and had supper. At 10 o'clock the other son returned from his work; then the whole family went to bed. The next morning the body of deceased was found southeast of and near the little bridge referred to, with a large stone on top of her head. There were fingers marks on the throat of deceased, a wound on the forehead, one on the cheek, and one over the eye. There was also a clean cut on each side of the face, made by a knife. In the mouth was the odor of carbolic acid, and an ounce and a half of that liquid was found in her stomach. The empty cup which deceased took from home was found on the ground near her dead body. A further examination showed that deceased was pregnant, and had been in that condition for about two months.

One of the state's witnesses, named Ed Marcus, testified that he crossed that little bridge just before dark that evening, saw defendant standing there, and that he stopped and talked with defendant, he knowing defendant by name. The witness noticed that defendant was looking around at the bridge very closely, and asked defendant if he was the bridge inspector; defendant replying that he was. Defendant pointed to the Newton house, and asked Marcus if he knew who lived in that house; to which Marcus replied that he (defendant) went with a girl up there enough to know who lived in that house. Marcus stated that he then passed on, leaving defendant still standing on that bridge. He also stated that he noticed a horse and buggy standing close to a fence near the bridge. Another witness, Fred Grubb, testified that he passed near that bridge about that time, saw defendant, and recognized him; that he saw deceased come out on her back porch, and sit down on the edge of the porch; that defendant waved to her, and deceased got up and went back into...