State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 24 June 1889
• Parties: STATE v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 S.W. 981

98 Mo. 461

STATE v. ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 24, 1889.

MURDER — INDICTMENT — INSTRUCTIONS.

1. An indictment for murder, which charges that defendant gave deceased a mortal wound on the "head and body," is not fatally defective for repugnancy, under the Missouri practice, and Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 1821, providing that no indictment shall be invalid for repugnancy when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and the person charged.

2. Where it appears from the evidence that the crime was nothing less than murder in the first degree, a refusal to instruct on murder in the second degree is proper.

3. An instruction as to the legal presumption of

intention from the use of a deadly weapon, and of an intention to kill being an element of murder in the first degree, does not conflict with a former instruction, properly defining murder in the first degree.

4. On a trial for wife-murder, where there is evidence that defendant killed deceased because of her infidelity to him, an instruction that if he killed her because she was unfaithful, or because of jealousy, he is guilty of murder in the first degree, is proper.

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; JAMES C. NORMILE, Judge.

Dr. Lutz, who made the post mortem on the body of the deceased, testified to the wounds on the head, which could have been made by a blunt instrument such as a wooden club, which was shown him, and that it was likely that death would result from such wounds almost instantly. Police Sergeant Boyd states he first saw the defendant at the police station at 7:25 on the morning of the 9th of August; that the defendant walked into the office, and said, in response to questions put, substantially as follows: "I came here to give myself up. I have killed my wife. I am tired of the way she has been acting. I killed her with a base-ball bat. I had been out the night before looking for her," (witness did not exactly remember whether defendant said his wife came home, or whether he brought her home,) but next morning defendant arose about 5 o'clock, and she was asleep at the time, either on a pallet or on a bed. Defendant told witness that he drew the sheet over her head, and took a base-ball bat, and mashed her over the head. He did not know how many times he hit her. He hit her until he thought he killed her. Defendant then left the house, and stopped at a lady's house, telling her to go and take charge of the child at his house, which was an adopted child. Defendant said he contemplated suicide by drowning himself, but on second thought he came to the police office to give himself up. Defendant said he lived at 2514 North Broadway, in rear, second floor. That is where his wife laid now. "The base-ball bat is in the room. I prepared it two or three days previous. I contemplated killing this woman for the way she had been acting. That she was not doing right." Witness did not visit the premises, but saw the body at the morgue. Saw the base-ball bat afterwards, at the coroner's inquest, and defendant identified it as the bat he killed her with. Witness further testified that, when defendant came into the police office, defendant walked in cool and unconcerned, but did not know whether defendant was under the influence of drink. He may possibly have had a drink. Defendant was locked up by witness. Witness was present at the coroner's inquest, when defendant identified the dead body as that of his wife. On cross-examination, witness said defendant, when he came into the office, did not seem to be very sober, nor tolerably under the influence of liquor, but witness did not think he smelled liquor on him, but seemed to be perfectly cool and collected; and, in response to a question asked by Boyd, said: "I understand what I am doing and what I am saying."

Hugh O'Neils, a police officer, stated that he saw defendant in the calaboose, and had a conversation with him in Sergt. Boyd's presence. Defendant identified the club with which he killed his wife. Defendant said his wife had been acting very badly, — acting as a prostitute. He pleaded with her to stop it. He pleaded more as a father than as a husband, but she would not stop it; but finally he could not stand it any longer, and he killed her. On cross-examination, witness said that defendant said he had found a postal-card from some man wanting her to meet him, and that he begged her not to go, and she said she would go, and kept on going. The circuit attorney here offered the club in evidence.

Annie Eberhard, living at 1821 North Ninth street, in August, 1888, knew defendant and his wife. They were living together. Had no children, but had an adopted child living with them. The child was three or four years old. On the morning of the killing, defendant came to her house, telling her what he had done, and asked her to go and see to his wife, so he could get away. He killed her. "This was about 6 o'clock in the morning. He then went away. I went to the Fourth district police station, and an officer went with me to Anderson's house. We found her on the floor dead. The quilt was over her face. We could not see her face. I took the child, and took him down stairs. The child was laying beside her, asleep. The woman was dead." On cross-examination: "Anderson often came to my house. His wife, not much. Anderson was a nice, quiet, industrious, hard-working man, and quiet. I had never known him in trouble the ten years I knew him. He treated his wife very kind. I heard it in his house. He asked her to be a good woman and stay at home, and behave herself. He often complained to me that she was going out every night. That was the whole time I knowed him, — when they were living together as husband and wife. He was a hard-working man, do what labor men can do. He was very handy at anything. He supported his wife. A short time before the killing he was sick for about a month. He had been working for Bishop, and the stove fell on him. He was not able to work. They had but one room. It had two beds. I examined his bed. It had not been occupied. It was made up. Nobody had slept in it. The other bed was all disturbed. Her clothes were laying there as when she came home that night. I saw something wrong with this man's mind. He often acted strange when he was in my house. He `feeled' funny, — like he was out of his mind over this woman. Sometimes he would come in and talk a word, and then he jumped up and went out again. Act so silly, — so foolish. He did that way all last winter; most all the time I talked to him. I see him nearly every day last winter. He talked about his wife going out, and about her staying out in the night, and she never made any meals, and nothing for him at all, and he had to take care of the house and the child, and wash for him, too. She never would stay home, and do anything. He told me his wife was once arrested for going with other men in the night. She said she had been arrested for going with the men. I asked her. I saw him three days before the killing. He acted very strange. He had no rest. He was uneasy, — restless. He was not right in his mind. He was like a crazy man in his head, over the trouble he had."

On Behalf of Defendant. Gustave F. Bauer, a grocer, testified to the good character of defendant. That the wife's reputation was not good. "I saw him frequently. The last time he was in my store he grieved himself greatly; worried himself about his wife. I thought when he was gone the man acted very funny. He was very much worried about the woman. This was two or three years, may be. He and his wife were together in my store often, and I saw he treated her kind in my presence. I heard from different parties his wife's reputation for morality was bad, — from people who knowed the parties. I heard it in my store. Her neighbors been telling she was out often whole nights."

Henry Fehr said defendant sometimes worked for him; that he was a good, honest workman.

Julia Hughes, a married lady, lived in the next yard to the Anderson's. He was a peaceable and quiet man. Every one thought he was nice and quiet. "I always thought he treated his wife good. I never heard him quarrel, or say a cross word to her. I heard him often talking to his wife. One evening he said to her: Why don't you stay at home and keep your house clean, like that woman down-stairs? You go out all the time. I'd rather you stay at home, and cook something, than to go the way you do.' I often heard the neighbors speak about her. They would say: `She runs so much.'"

Matthew Walker, a neighbor of defendant's, said: "His general reputation is very quiet, hard-working, industrious man. His wife was a woman that would run around among men. That was her reputation. Everybody around there knew her to be a very common woman of that kind. A woman that every one knew; that would run at night with men, — with anybody and everybody. I saw her in company with men most any time. Her husband was not there in the day-time. She hardly ever had any lady company. She had great many gentlemen visitors, — strange men, — all strangers to me. I heard her husband trying to get her to stay at home. Several days before her death I heard him talking to her, trying to get her not to go off on an excursion that was going up the river. I heard she was arrested once. I didn't see her arrested, but I know she was away from home several days. At times Anderson would not act as well as he did at others. At times he would sit and cry, and you could not find out what he was crying about. He was crying the day before the death of his wife. I have noticed him several times before. In my opinion, he was not right. He would talk foolish at times. His principal talk all the time was about him and his wife; her troubles. How they would get along, and her running around. I saw this club on the day she was murdered. Never before. I knew him to collect wood and coal on the railroad very often. In pleasant...