State v. Blize
Decision Date | 20 September 1892 |
Citation | 20 S.W. 210,111 Mo. 464 |
Parties | The State v. Blize, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
W. S Pope for appellant.
(1) The court erred in admission of evidence in behalf of the state. The evidence that defendant had on the preliminary examination of Knatzer made a different statement from that made on the latter's trial was not sufficient corroboration to convict. Schulter v. Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 239; 2 Wharton's Criminal Law [9 Ed.] sec. 1317; 2 Bishop on Criminal Law [7 Ed.] secs. 931, 1045. (2) Where one is charged with swearing falsely as to character, the strictest rules as to the introduction of evidence must be observed. 2 Wharton on Criminal Law, sec. 1283; State v Frisby, 90 Mo. 530. (3) The evidence does not sustain the charges of perjury in the indictment. 2 Wharton on Criminal Law [9 Ed.] sec. 1305; 61 Cal. 536; 20 Iowa 586. (3) The court committed material error in giving and refusing instructions. (4) The indictment is insufficient, and the motion in arrest should have been sustained. State v Day, 100 Mo. 242. The indictment is bad for the reason that it avers that the material question was as to the character of Ruah L. Smith at and prior to May 10, 1886, and the averment is that the testimony was as to her character before May, 1886. State v. Hamilton, 65 Mo. 667. Dates must be correctly stated. It is bad for the reason that it does not pretend to set out the language used by defendant in his testimony, said to be false. Only the inference from the language used by him is stated. State v. Keel, 54 Mo. 182; State v. Holden, 48 Mo. 93; State v. Bailey, 34 Mo. 350.
John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.
Defendant was convicted of perjury, and from the sentence appeals to this court. He was accused under the indictment, in substance, with swearing falsely in the trial of one James B. Knatzer under an indictment in which he was charged with having seduced, under promise of marriage, one Ruah L. Smith who was an unmarried female of good repute and under twenty-one years of age.
The indictment further charged, in substance, that defendant, at said trial, appeared as a witness in behalf of said Knatzer, and being duly sworn by the clerk of the court, and "being so sworn as aforesaid, wickedly contriving and intending to cause the said James R. Knatzer unjustly to be acquitted of said felony, did then and there feloniously, knowingly, falsely, corruptly, wilfully and wickedly say, depose and give in evidence to the jurors of the jury then and there duly taken and sworn between the state and the said James R. Knatzer, before the said Honorable E. L. Edwards, judge of said court, that the said John Blize knew the general reputation of the said Ruah L. Smith, in the community and among her associates, for virtue and chastity before May, 1886, and that the same was bad, and that said John Blize did then and there feloniously, knowingly, falsely, corruptly and wickedly say, depose and give in evidence to said jurors on said trial before said court that he, the said John Blize, had had sexual connection and intercourse with her, the said Ruah L. Smith, before May, 1886, whereas in truth and in fact the said John Blize did not know the general reputation of the said Ruah L. Smith, before May, 1886, for virtue and chastity to be bad, and whereas in truth and in fact the said John Blize did not and had not before May, 1886, or at any other time, had sexual connection and intercourse with the said Ruah L. Smith, as by him so sworn and testified to in said court."
Defendant did not deny, indeed he admitted when examined as a witness, that he did testify on the trial of Knatzer that he knew the reputation of the complaining witness, Ruah L. Smith, for virtue and chastity, prior to the alleged seduction, and that it was bad, and that he himself had, previous thereto, had sexual intercourse with her.
The issue then upon the trial was whether the testimony, so given, was false as charged. Ruah L. Smith testified that defendant never had intercourse with her, and defendant testified that he had, and that his evidence in the Knatzer trial was true. To corroborate the testimony of Ruah L. Smith, several witnesses were called who testified that defendant was a witness before a justice of the peace in the preliminary examination of the said Knatzer for the alleged seduction, and then testified that he had never had sexual intercourse with her. Defendant denied that he so testified on the preliminary examination, and a number of witnesses who were present testified that they heard no such testimony. Witnesses were also called to prove that, on such preliminary examination, defendant also testified that he knew the reputation of the said Ruah, for virtue and chastity, and that it was good. An examination of the evidence on this point satisfies us that the testimony of these witnesses went no further than to tend to prove that defendant swore on preliminary examination that the said Ruah, prior to her alleged seduction, was "a little fast," and that he knew nothing against her. None of them go so far as to say that he testified that he knew her reputation was bad.
The court gave the following with other instructions:
Defendant requested, and the court refused to give, the following instruction:
I. It is insisted by defendant as ground for the reversal of the judgment, that the evidence of the prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial