State v. Brannum

• Decision Date: 07 May 1888
• Citation: 95 Mo. 19,8 S.W. 218
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. BRANNUM.

8 S.W. 218

95 Mo. 19

STATE v. BRANNUM.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May 7, 1888.

1. HOMICIDE — ASSAULT WITH INTENT TO KILL — EVIDENCE.

On trial of an indictment for shooting at one G. with intent to kill, a half-brother of G. was asked, "where is your brother now?" and answered, "My brother is dead," but stated that it was over a year after he was shot before he died. Held, that such testimony is competent to account for G.'s absence from the trial.

2. APPEAL — REVIEW — RULINGS ON EVIDENCE — FAILURE TO STATE OBJECTIONS.

Where the grounds of an objection to evidence are not stated at the time it is made, they will not be considered in the appellate court.

3. SAME — REVIEW — OBJECTIONS NOT RAISED BELOW — FAILURE TO EXCEPT TO THE GIVING OF INSTRUCTIONS.

Where the record does not show that any exceptions were taken, at the time, to the action of the court in giving and refusing instructions, such instructions will not be reviewed in the appellate court.

Appeal from circuit court, Dunklin county; R. P. OWEN, Judge.

Thomas J. Brannum was indicted for shooting at Dixie Glover with intent to kill. There was a conviction, and defendant appeals.

S. M. Chapman, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

NORTON, C. J.

Defendant was tried at the May term, 1884, of the Dunklin county circuit court, under an indictment charging him with having shot at one Dixie Glover with intent to kill, and was convicted, and his punishment assessed at four years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From this judgment he has appealed. In the progress of the trial, during the examination of one Mezell, a half-brother of Glover, was asked, "Where is your brother now?" and the witness was allowed to answer over defendant's objection, and said, "my brother is dead;" and further stated that it was a good deal over a year after he was shot before he died. This action of the court is assigned for error. It was entirely competent for the state to account for the absence of Glover, who was shot, by showing that he was dead, in order to shut off unfavorable inferences which could have been drawn from the nonproduction of Glover as a witness; and we are not able to perceive how it could in any way have prejudiced the jury, especially as no attempt was made to show that his death was the result of the shooting; but, on the contrary, the statement made, that so long a time intervened between the time he was shot and his death, would repeal such a presumption.

Defendant was...