State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 08 June 1909 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. M. Kinsey, Judge.
Edward F. Clark, alias Francis, was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Willis H. Clark, for appellant. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., and John M. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On June 28, 1906, the assistant circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis filed an information in the circuit court of said city, charging the defendant with having committed the crime of sodomy with one Ruby Alfend, a boy of the age of 12 years. Thereafter, upon trial had, he was found guilty of an attempt to commit said crime, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years. Timely motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed by the defendant, and, the same having been overruled, an appeal was taken to this court.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Defendant met the Alfend boy, who was engaged in selling newspapers, at the corner of Sixth and Olive streets, in the city of St. Louis, on the evening of June 27, 1906, and directed him to go into the alley between Lucas and St. Charles streets, and Broadway and Sixth street, and to wait there for him. The boy did as directed, and the defendant soon followed him, and, as the evidence shows, the crime was committed in said alley. A private watchman discovered the pair in the commission of the act, and immediately notified two policemen, who came to the scene of the crime and placed the defendant and the boy under arrest. The defendant appeared to be drunk at the time. He at first protested that he did not do anything, and then said there were "two sides to the case." At the trial it was shown that he had been drinking for a day or two prior to the date of the commission of the offense. The crime was not denied, and the only defense interposed was that of insanity.
It developed at the trial that the defendant was one of eleven children, only four of whom were then living; that his father, who died a few years previously at the age of 64, was incapable of attending to his affairs for several years prior to his death, and was considerably an imbecile; that an actor brother of the defendant became violently insane at the age of 38, and died soon afterwards in an insane asylum; that a sister of his also became insane at about the same age, and was still an inmate of the city insane asylum in St. Louis, having been there some eight years; that the defendant bore a striking resemblance to his father, as did also the insane brother and sister; that he had a living brother who was then manager of a shoe factory, and a sister, who was a music teacher. The latter testified at the trial as a witness for the defendant. Dr. John J. Ryan, a nonexpert witness, testified that he had known the defendant 12 or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gadwood, 34750.
... ... But his presence may be constructive; (3) he must aid or abet the commission of the offense. Some participation is necessary, though it need not necessarily be active. Mere knowledge of the offense and mental approval is not enough. Clark & Marshall on the Law of Crimes (2 Ed.), p. 239, sec. 170; State v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391; State v. Simon, 57 S.W. (2d) 1062; State v. Ledbetter, 332 Mo. 225, 58 S.W. (2d) 453; State v. Orrick. 106 Mo. 111, 17 S.W. 176; State v. Porter, 276 Mo. 387, 207 S.W. 774; State v. Hickam, 95 Mo. 322, 8 S.W ... ...
-
State v. Gadwood
... ... offense is committed. But his presence may be constructive; ... (3) he must aid or abet the commission of the offense. Some ... participation is necessary, though it need not necessarily be ... active. Mere knowledge of the offense and mental approval is ... not enough. Clark & Marshall on the Law of Crimes (2 Ed.), p ... 239, sec. 170; State v. Davis, 29 Mo. 391; State ... v. Simon, 57 S.W.2d 1062; State v. Ledbetter, ... 332 Mo. 225, 58 S.W.2d 453; State v. Orrick. 106 Mo ... 111, 17 S.W. 176; State v. Porter, 276 Mo. 387, 207 ... S.W. 774; State v ... ...
-
State v. McDaris
...been held error to submit by instruction an attempt to commit either offense. State v. McCaffery, 225 Mo. 617, 125 S.W. 468; State v. Clark, 221 Mo. 391, 120 S.W. 21. In the latter case, except for the differences in the substantive offenses, the instruction hypothesizing 'attempt' and 'pre......
-
State v. Mahood
...State v. Bobbitt, 242 Mo. loc. cit. 287, 146 S. W. 799; State v. McCaffery, 225 Mo. loc. cit. 623, 125 S. W. 468; State v. Clark, 221 Mo. loc. cit. 396, 120 S. W. 21; State v. Bell, 194 Mo. loc. cit. 2(37, 91 S. W. 898. Earlier cases cited in the Bell Case announce the same Unfortunately, h......