State v. Bryant

• Citation: 102 Mo. 24,14 S.W. 822
• Parties: STATE v. BRYANT.
• Decision Date: 01 December 1890
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

14 S.W. 822

102 Mo. 24

STATE v. BRYANT.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 1, 1890.

MANSLAUGHTER — SELF-DEFENSE.

1. The court charged that one could not seek a combat in order that when hard pressed he might have a pretext for taking life, and, if the accused sought the difficulty or brought it on, then the jury could not acquit on the ground of self-defense, but, if the accused entered into the difficulty with no design to use his pistol nor to kill nor to do great bodily harm, and while under the influence of violent passion aroused by the conduct of the deceased, he killed the latter, but without malice, and under such circumstances as did not justify him on the ground of self-defense, then the jury should convict of manslaughter in the fourth degree. And that, before the jury could refuse the accused the benefit of his plea of self-defense on the ground that he voluntarily entered into the difficulty, they must find that he had at that time a felonious intent to maim, wound, or kill. Held, that the instructions were substantially correct.

2. The accused stopped the deceased on the street, almost his first words being of foul abuse, continued with numerous repetitions. He frequently ran his hand into his pocket where his pistol was. At last he stepped off as if about to go. Then suddenly turning, he changed his cane to his left hand, and shook his fist in the face of the deceased. He then drew his pistol and shot deceased five times, once in the back, while the latter was trying to escape. The accused then said that was what he had been wanting to do for some time. He testified that, just before he pulled his pistol, the deceased put his hand in his pocket as if to draw a weapon, and it was shown that the deceased had made threats against the accused, which had been communicated to him. Held, that there was no self-defense in the case.

Appeal from circuit court, Platte county; J. M. SANDUSKY, Judge.

Indicted for murder in the first degree for killing William Grundon, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 10 years. The following is a sufficient statement of the salient facts in evidence: For some 6, 8, or 10 years prior to the homicide, bad blood had existed between the deceased and the defendant, and this enmity still continued down to the time of the trial, though it appears that deceased had, some years after the difficulty or quarrel which then occurred congratulated the defendant on his reobtaining the deeds to his property, before they were recorded. This property it seems was some of the same property concerning the possession of which the difficulty arose. On the 20th day of April, 1887, in the town of Newmarket, in Platte county, Mo., deceased came out of the post-office onto the street. Defendant came out a few steps behind him, and, walking up to him, handed him a paper, saying to him at the time that "there is a notice requiring the possession of the grass lot." From the testimony of defendant himself, it appears that deceased had put his cow on a lot claimed by defendant, and the paper handed by him to deceased was a notice to quit the possession of that lot. When defendant handed the paper to deceased, and told him what it was, deceased said he was not the man, and defendant replied that he was "one of the damned thieves." Deceased said he would have to prove it. The defendant then accused deceased of stealing his bins, and called him a "liar, thief, and son of a bitch." They quarreled for a while, some of the witnesses testifying that each called the other a liar, others testifying that the only abusive language used was by defendant. Defendant took a step or two away, as if he was going to leave, and then returned and shook his hand under deceased's nose. He had a cane in his right hand which he changed to his left, and with his right he pulled out a pistol and fired five times at deceased, all of which took effect. Several times during the quarrel, defendant was seen to put his hand in the pocket in which he had his pistol. When defendant fired the first shot, deceased slapped his hands to his sides and commenced jumping around and trying to get away. One of the shots was fired after deceased had his back turned. The deceased was unarmed, and at no time during the quarrel made an attempt to strike defendant. Immediately after the shooting, defendant said that that was what he had been wanting to do for some time, and now they might hang him. Deceased went to his home in Newmarket, where he died from the effect of the wounds two days afterward. Defendant claimed that, just before he pulled his pistol and commenced shooting at deceased, deceased put his hand in his pocket as if he was going to draw a weapon, and that he shot him in self-defense. It was shown, also, that Grundon had threatened the defendant, and that these threats had been communicated to the latter. During the progress of the trial, the defendant offered to show that, at the time of the difficulty before mentioned, the deceased had made a dangerous assault upon him with a millpick, a deadly weapon; but the court, on objection made, refused permission to introduce the details of this difficulty, but permitted defendant to show that he and deceased had a difficulty at the time mentioned, and to show that threats had been made then or at any subsequent period, and the state of feeling which had thenceforward existed between the parties. The claim of the defendant was that the shooting was done in self-defense. The instructions given by the court of its own motion, and at the instance of the state, were such as are usually given in cases of this sort. The fifth instruction, given by the court of its own motion, contains the substance of similar instructions...