State v. Birks
Decision Date | 20 November 1906 |
Citation | 199 Mo. 263,97 S.W. 578 |
Parties | STATE v. BIRKS. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; F. C. Johnston, Judge.
Harry Birks was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
This cause is brought here upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the circuit court of Lawrence county for murder of the second degree. The information upon which this prosecution is predicated is as follows:
It will be observed that the killing of Marion Thomas is charged to have occurred in Barry county. The record discloses that upon the defendant's application the venue of said cause, on the ground of the prejudice of the inhabitants of said county, was changed to the circuit court of Lawrence county. At the November term, 1905, of the Lawrence county circuit court the defendant was put upon his trial. The state's evidence tended to prove that the deceased and his brother, Houston Thomas, resided on a farm near Monett, and were engaged in the sawmill and threshing machine business. The deceased was a married man and about 40 years of age, and his brother was about 30 years old at the time of the homicide. On March 9, 1905, deceased and his brother drove to Monett in a two-horse buggy, reaching there between 11 and 12 o'clock. They tied their team to the public track and visited various places of business during the afternoon. About 6 o'clock p. m. they went to the Shaw saloon, where they saw defendant at the farther end of the bar. Deceased and his brother had also seen the defendant near the post office an hour or more prior to this time, but nothing was said by either one of them at either time. While they were in the Shaw saloon, defendant left the saloon, going out the back door. This saloon was located in the same block and only a short distance from the Sherman saloon, where the final difficulty occurred. After leaving the Shaw saloon, deceased and his brother went to the lumber yard, and from there to the Sherman saloon. The witnesses differ as to the exact time when these two men reached the Sherman saloon, but all agree that it was a little after 6, possibly 5, 10, or 15 minutes past 6. In this saloon the deceased was standing next to a screen, Thornton Cox was standing next to deceased, and Houston Thomas was standing next to Thornton Cox, and all three were facing the bar, taking a drink. The saloon faces the east, has double doors in front and near to said doors, and only six or seven feet away is a screen made of wood and colored glass. On the north side of the saloon is the bar, and on the east end of the bar, out beyond the screen, is the cigar stand. The deceased, his brother, and Thornton Cox were west of, and be hind, this screen, and near to, and facing the bar. A few minutes after Mr. Sherman came on duty in the saloon the deceased asked him if he had seen defendant, or if he knew where the defendant was. In a monument the defendant walked into the front of the saloon and around on the south side of this screen. He was carrying a double-barreled shotgun. Defendant had the stock of the gun under his arm, and the barrel was angling out to the front of him and towards the deceased. Defendant said: Deceased said, "Harry, don't," and raised his hands. At the same time he walked towards the defendant. Defendant stepped back toward the front door and fired at deceased; the load taking effect in the right groin. Deceased fell to the floor, and defendant pointed his gun toward the brother of the deceased; but Sherman jumped over the cigar case and took the gun away from defendant. At the same time Thornton Cox took hold of deceased's brother and prevented any further trouble.
The state's evidence further showed that a little after 6 o'clock p. m. defendant walked into the Shaw saloon, or Meagher's saloon, carrying a double-barreled shotgun, and asked Mr. Meagher to give him some shells. Mr. Meagher asked where he was going, and defendant said that he was going to King's Pond the next morning duck hunting. Mr. Meagher then gave defendant four loaded shells, and defendant broke down the gun and inserted two of the shells in the breech. Mr. Meagher objected to defendant loading the gun in there; but defendant did not remove the shells. Defendant left the Meagher saloon, and in less than 10 minutes he returned, saying that he had killed a man, and gave Mr. Meagher back two of the shells. Defendant was arrested that evening by Officer Jackson, who took defendant to jail; and defendant remarked to the officer that "that was a hell of a way to go duck hunting." At 2 o'clock that night Officer Jackson received a telephone message that Marion Thomas had died, and told the defendant of that fact the next morning. Defendant said, "I guess I will have to die a little, too." The next day, while riding on the train with Officer Jackson, defendant stated to John Hornbeck that he wished he had killed Mr. Sherman first, and then shot the other two brothers. A few minutes after the shooting Dr. Russell was summoned to the saloon and examined the wounds on deceased, and Dr. Miller was also summoned, and the two decided to move deceased to the Indiana Hotel. The physicians testified that they found deceased suffering from a gunshot wound, which entered the right groin, extending back through the pubic bone and into the rectum. The wound ranged down, to the right and backward, and was very large, having been made by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brinkley, 39557.
...fate. State v. Lovell, 235 Mo. 343, 138 S.W. 523; State v. Cook, 44 S.W. (2d) 90; State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474, 8 S.W. 723; State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. 578; State v. Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 26 S.W. 364. (67) Cross-examination of police officers Brown, Smith and Mulitsch was unduly unre......
-
State v. Malone
...between deceased and a third party, and was inadmissible. State v. Swearengin, 269 Mo. 177; State v. Ethridge, 188 Mo. 352; State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263; State v. Woods, 124 Mo. 412; State v. Hanson, 231 Mo. 14; State v. Palmer, 281 Mo. 525; State v. Bostwick, 245 Mo. 483; State v. Jones, 25......
-
State v. Taylor
...247 S.W. 150; 10 R.C.L. 974-976; Rogers v. State, 88 Ark. 451, 114 S.W. 156, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 857; State v. Hart, 274 S.W. 385; State v. Berks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. par. 78; State v. Hayes, 247 S.W. 165; State v. Martin, 28 S.W. 12. (9) The circuit court erred in refusing to grant appellant......
-
State v. Hefflin
...and prejudicial testimony to be introduced by the State as part of the res gestae. State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474, 8 S.W. 723; State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. 578; State v. Helleker, 201 Mo. 614, 100 S.W. 470; State v. Porter, 213 Mo. 43, 111 S.W. 529; State v. McKenzie, 228 Mo. 385, 128 S......