State v. Bell
| Citation | 223 S.W.2d 469,359 Mo. 785 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | 41575 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. George U. Bell, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Dewey P. Thatch Special Judge.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff was convicted of murder in the first degree, shooting a police officer in a gun fight. Evidence of the shooting of other persons was part of the res gestae. Explanatory evidence of the events leading up to the gun fight was proper. Cross-examination of a hostile state's witness by the prosecuting attorney was proper. A self-serving statement of a witness was properly excluded. Photographs of the dead body and the scene of the killing were material. A cautionary instruction as to conflicting statements of a witness was not required. The presence of uniformed officers at the trial was not prejudicial. There was no bias shown, and the assignment is too general.
J. E. Taylor, Attorney General, and W. Brady Duncan, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
(1) The court did not err in admitting the opening statement of the prosecuting attorney and later the evidence with reference to the commission of other offenses other than the one charged against the defendant in the information. State v. Brinkley, 354 Mo. 337, 189 S.W.2d 314; State v. Mangercino, 325 Mo. 794, 30 S.W.2d 763; State v. Mosley, 22 S.W.2d 784; State v. Posey, 347 Mo. 1088, 152 S.W.2d 34. (2) The court did not err in admitting the evidence of Helen Rainey as to the original cause of the trouble. State v. Johnson, 349 Mo. 910, 163 S.W.2d 780. (3) The court ruled properly when it permitted the prosecuting attorney to cross-examine state's witness Ora Belle Scott. 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses, sec. 618, p. 342; State v. Shepard, 334 Mo. 423, 67 S.W.2d 91; State v. Shelton, 351 Mo. 799, 174 S.W.2d 202; Sec. 4069, Mo. R.S.A. (4) The court did not err in excluding the self-serving statement of Ora Belle Scott, as to what she told her mother. State v. Duncan, 116 Mo. 288, 22 S.W. 699. (5) The court did not err in admitting in evidence state's Exhibit No. 12, a photograph. State v. McDaniel, 336 Mo. 656, 80 S.W.2d 185; Potts v. Colorado, 159 A.L.R. 1410. (6) The court did not err in failing to give the jury a cautionary instruction as to state's Exhibit Nos. 9 and 10, the statement of Ora Belle Scott and her testimony at the preliminary hearing. State v. Hampton, 172 S.W.2d 1; State v. Bagley, 339 Mo. 215, 96 S.W.2d 331. (7) The court properly admitted state's Exhibit Nos. 8, 13, 14, 15 and 17, photographs of the scene. See cases cited under Point (5) of this brief. (8) The court properly overruled appellant's assignment No. 18 which complains of uniformed officers being present in the courtroom during the trial. State v. McKeever, 339 Mo. 1066, 101 S.W.2d 22. (9) The verdict is not the result of bias and prejudice. Secs. 4125, 4378, Mo. R.S.A.
Defendant, represented by two regularly licensed and practicing attorneys, was tried in the circuit court of Jackson County for the murder of Charles Neaves, a policeman of Kansas City, on September 20, 1948. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and assessed defendant's punishment at death. Judgment and sentence were rendered in accordance with the verdict and defendant appeals.
Evidence introduced by the State was that William Bell and a woman named Gwindola King occupied the front room and Mrs. Rainey and her infant daughter occupied the rear two rooms of an apartment. On September 18, 1948, Mrs. Rainey had some trouble with William Bell and had him arrested and placed under bond to keep the peace. On September 20, 1948, at about nine o'clock p.m., Mrs. Rainey returned to her rooms with her infant daughter. As she passed through the front part of the apartment she saw defendant, his brother William, Gwindola King and two other women drinking liquor. She heard William Bell, in the presence of defendant, say that she was the woman who had him arrested and that he was going to "get" her in such a way that no one would know who did it. She left by a back door and went to a neighbor's house and called the police. Officers Neaves and Washington, after talking to Mrs. Rainey, went to the apartment where they found the five persons above mentioned. They told William Bell that he would have to go with them to the police station as he had broken his peace bond. He said it was a "frame-up," but would go into the next room, get his coat and go with them. About that time defendant took up the argument and the officers told him he would have to go with them too. William Bell returned and defendant suddenly seized a shotgun and shot Officer Neaves at short range. He fell and apparently died instantly. Officer Washington started to run and William Bell took the shotgun and shot and killed him. Defendant dragged the body of Officer Neaves along the hall toward the front door. There was a puddle of blood at the spot where the officer had fallen and a smear along the floor. Defendant told the King woman to get a mop and mop up the floor before other policemen could arrive. Other policemen came, a gun battle ensued, resulting in the killing of William Bell and Officers Wells and Perrine. Two other officers and a bystander were wounded. Defendant escaped, but was arrested soon afterwards. A laboratory test was made of spots on a part of his clothing and determined to be blood. A paraffin test was used on his hands and showed the presence of nitrates which could have been caused by the discharge of a firearm. After the shooting was over, statements were taken from the three women who were present. Two of them, Ora Belle Scott and Alpha Russell, stated that they saw defendant shoot Officer Neaves with a shotgun. The King woman said she did not see the actual shooting, but saw defendant drag the body of Neaves down the hall. These women made substantially the same statements under oath at the preliminary hearing before a magistrate and two of them gave the same kind of testimony at the trial. The other, Ora Belle Scott, a witness for the State, changed her testimony at the trial by saying that she did not see defendant do any shooting. Thereupon the prosecutor claimed surprise and was permitted, over the objection of defendant's counsel, to cross-examine the witness.
The State offered other evidence of a corroborative nature which it is unnecessary to detail. Defendant's motion for a new trial does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence. The defense was that all the killing was done by William Bell.
Defendant has filed no brief in this court. His motion for a new trial contains twenty assignments of error, many of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willsie v. Thompson
... ... centered on a fight or commotion in the street and not on the ... approaching train, to the effect that they did not hear ... whistle and bell signals from the train, was insufficient ... evidence upon which to submit the case to the jury on such ... issues. Knorp v. Thompson, 212 S.W.2d ... Co., 123 S.W.2d 220; McCreery v. United Ry ... Co., 221 Mo. 18, 120 S.W. 24; Cathcart v. H. & St ... J. Ry., 19 Mo.App. 113; State v. Smith, 222 ... S.W. 455; C. & N.W. v. Garwood, 167 F.2d 848. (2) ... The mere negative testimony of the same witnesses, whose ... attention was ... ...
-
State v. Gray
...as a part 'of a continuous occurrence intimately connected with the crime for which defendant was being tried.' State v. Bell, 359 Mo. 785, 223 S.W.2d 469, 471(1) With respect to the final motion filed by Dan Westley Gray, the trial court quite property refused disqualification because mova......
-
State v. Davis
...occurrence intimately connected with the act of killing Traci Davis. As such it was not part of the res gestae. 2 See State v. Bell, 359 Mo. 785, 223 S.W.2d 469, 471 (banc 1949). A defendant is not entitled to introduce as evidence a self-serving declaration that is independent of the res g......
-
State v. Gilbert, 37232
... ... This evidence was admissible as a part of the res gestae. It related to links in a chain of occurrences so intimately and necessarily connected with the crime charged as to be part and parcel of the proof of attempted burglary of the candy-tobacco store. State v. Bell, 359 Mo. 785, 223 S.W.2d 469, 471(1) (banc 1949). "Evidence covering the commission of other offenses ... is admissible when two or more crimes are so linked together in point of time or circumstances that one cannot be fully shown without proving the other. * * *" State v. Garrison, 342 Mo ... ...