State v. Ball
Decision Date | 05 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 25259 |
Citation | 262 S.W. 1043 |
Parties | STATE v. BALL |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Ralph S. Latshaw, of Kansas City, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Geo. W. Crowder. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree for shooting and killing Peggy Morris, alias Peggy Parsons, on January 17, 1923. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter on February 13, 1923, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
The statement prepared by appellant's learned counsel is as follows:
The state read in evidence a statement signed by the defendant at the police station a few hours after his arrest. It was shown that the defendant said he wanted to make a statement, and that it was voluntarily made, without persuasion, threats, or promises of any kind on the part of the officers who had him in custody. The defendant, however, testified that the officers 'told me I had better talk.' He also testified that his mind was a blank; that he did not remember what he said. On cross-examination, he admitted his signature to the statement and said: 'I guess I did make the statement.' It reads:
'My name is Reubin Ball. I am 28 years of age. I live at 1324 Paseo. I am a machinist by trade. I have been working for my brother, who conducts the Ball Grinding Company, at 710 Oak St.
'About two years ago I met Peggy Parsons, alias Peggy Morris, through a friend of mine. About three weeks ago I went to live at Peggy Parson's home at 1324 Paseo. I slept with Peggy a few nights every week. Last night, January 16, 1923. I came home about 6:00 p. m. I remained there until about 9:00 p. m. and then left home. During the time I was at home she received several telephone calls. The calls on the telephone made me mad at her. I returned home about 12:00 midnight and on entering the apartment I found some stranger with Peggy. Peggy, myself and the other man went out to get something to eat. We returned to the apartment and there I got into an argument with Peggy and the man. About 1:00 a. m. Peggy left home in a yellow taxi. I then left home and went to Jake Spark's home at 1301 Campbell St., and remained there the balance of the night. I left Spark's home about 7:30 a. m. and came to 1324 Paseo. On entering the apartment I went to the bedroom and there found Peggy and Arthur Friedberg in bed together, both being undressed. Peggy got up from the bed and later came back towards my room. When I entered my room I went to the dresser drawer and got my gun. Peggy was not in the hallway near my room. I walked over towards her and there we quarreled some. She there made a grab for me and as she did so, I had my gun in my hand and shot her, firing two shots. I know that one of the shots struck her but do not know about the second shot. After she was shot she ran out in the hall. I do not know where. I then went to my room and called up my brother, Thomas Ball. I told him I was in trouble and that I had shot a woman. About this time police officer came in and arrested me. I was then taken to No. 6 police station, where I made this statement to J. M. Elder of the prosecutor's office.
'This statement which I am now making at No. 6 station is the truth, no promises or threats being made to me while making this statement.
[Signed] Reuben H. Ball.'
1. Appellant complains of error in the overruling of his motion to quash the indictment for the reason, as alleged in his brief, that the names of the witnesses were not indorsed on the copy of the indictment furnished him at the time of the arraignment. This assignment cannot be considered because the motion to quash is not set out, either in the record proper or in the bill of exceptions.
2. The court instructed the jury on murder in the first and second degrees. Appellant complains of instruction 9 on self-defense, which reads:
The court added to the instruction the italicized clause. It unreasonably and improperly restricted the right of self-defense, as defined in 21 Cyc. 814:
In State v. Matthews, 148 Mo. 185, 193, 49 S.W. 1085, 1086 (71 Am. St. Rep. 594), Judge Sherwood said:
'Relative to the question of self-defense, instruction 17 exhibits the insignia of that heresy which has so warped 'the first law of nature' in this state that the original commentator thereon would not know that subject were he to encounter it in his pathway. In the first place, it is not generally true that 'the right of self-defense does not imply the right of attack.' This is something which depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. A person about to be attacked is not bound to wait until his adversary gets 'the drop on him' or 'draws a bead on him,' to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial