State v. Brockington
| Decision Date | 25 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30926 |
| Citation | 36 S.W.2d 911 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROCKINGTON |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Edward G. Robison, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
In the circuit court of Jackson county the defendant was charged by information with murder in the first degree, May 12, 1929, in killing one Ralph Hinds. On trial June 26, 1929, a jury found defendant guilty as charged and assessed his punishment at death. After sentence was pronounced in accordance with the verdict, he appealed.
Defendant was a negro fifty-four years of age, and May 12, 1929, lived at 1409 Brooklyn, Kansas City. His family consisted of a wife and several children, four of whom and one son-in-law were in the house with him at the time of the alleged murder. On the night of May 11, 1929, he came from his work for his supper at the usual time, went back to the city, and returned after midnight, drunk. He had originally come from Arkansas and had been in Kansas City only a few months. He was in a bad temper, raised a disturbance with his family, and ordered his wife to pack his suitcase, he was going back to Arkansas made sinister threats and created such a disturbance that one daughter went out and called the police. Also his son-in-law, George Ross, called the police. The defendant learned of these calls, became enraged, and said if the police came he would mow them down. Officers Ralph Hinds and Delbert Bates came to the place. Hinds knocked on the door calling out, 'Police Officers.' The defendant had a revolver, opened the door, and fired several shots, three of which struck Hinds, mortally wounding him. Bates was wounded. The defendant ran out of the back door. He was arrested two or three hours later. A half-pint bottle of corn whisky about half full was found on him, also a 32-caliber revolver which was empty but indicated by the odor of burnt powder that it had been recently discharged.
The facts related above are shown by the evidence of numerous witnesses including officer Bates, and by four different statements signed by defendant after he was arrested. Written statements made by the members of his family to like effect were introduced in rebuttal.
The appellant has filed no brief in this court. We have his motion for new trial from which to ascertain the points relied upon for reversal. There was no objection to any of the instructions given by the court nor any specific errors pointed out in the introduction of evidence except as to two points to be noticed.
I. The defense was insanity, and one point made in the motion for new trial is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degree because it showed the defendant was in such mental condition that his act could not have been deliberate. The defendant introduced a number of witnesses who testified that at times he had showed evidence of insanity, and they believed him insane. The state introduced counter evidence upon that point. The defendant and members of his family, all of whom contradicted their written statements made the next day after the homicide, testified that he had spells during which he didn't know what he was doing. He himself said that he came home that night, became unconscious, and didn't know anything that happened from the time he got home until he found himself in the police station, lying on the floor and somebody kicking him. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could readily find that he was only beside himself with whisky, that the shooting was deliberate, and that he was fully cognizant of the character of the act.
II. On May 13th, the next day after the homicide, the defendant signed two statements at police headquarters, and two statements in the prosecuting attorney's office. In each of those statements he related the facts in connection with the homicide substantially as stated above. He objected to the introduction of those statements on the ground that they were obtained from him by abuse, threats, and the like. He was sworn on the point and, presumably in the absence of the jury, testified that he was taken to four or five different police stations; that 'they' kicked, struck, and jumped on him; he showed scars on his legs and on his head which he said were the result of beatings which were inflicted by the officers who had him in charge.
The state introduced as witnesses five officers who signed as witnesses to one statement made in the police court, and five officers who...
To continue reading
Request your trial