State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 13 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 43363,43363,2 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
A. H. Blunk, Forsyth, Rogers & Rogers, G. W. Rogers and Clyde Rogers, Gainesville, Lincoln, Lincoln, Haseltine & Forehand, Harold T. Lincoln and Horace S. Haseltine, Springfield, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., John S. Phillips, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Arthur T. Clark was charged by information with murder in the first degree in having killed Charlie Cobb by beating him upon the head and body with a dangerous and deadly weapon, in Taney County, on February 20, 1951. The case went on change of venue to Christian County where it was tried, appellant was convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment in accordance with the verdict.
Abandoning all other assignments of his motion for a new trial, appellant here complains of only the following: (1) Denial of his pre-trial motion to suppress evidence, and the subsequent admission of that evidence; (2) Admitting in evidence acts and declarations of alleged coconspirators (and the giving of two instructions based on such testimony) in the absence of proof of his connection with any conspiracy; (3) Admitting testimony of the sheriff with respect to the result of his investigation of Orville Meredith as a suspect in the case; and (4) The failure of the court to discharge the panel on motion 'because the sheriff had systematically excluded women therefrom. '
The fact that Cobb was murdered was admitted, the point of contest being appellant's connection with the crime. The principals lived near a small settlement known as Cedar Creek, in Taney County, Cobb on a farm known as the John May place. Deceased and his wife, Ruby, and their four children, together with Ruby's 17-year-old brother, composed the Cobb household. Appellant and his family (his wife Orma, and their four children) lived on their own farm about 2 miles southeast of the John May place. The murder occurred in the late afternoon of February 20, 1951, at the barn on the May place, to which deceased had gone for the purpose of doing his evening milking. His body was found by his children in the hallway of the barn. His skull had been fractured in several places--'practically pulverized on the left side;' both jaws and his nose were broken; there were 9 stab wounds in the forehead and over his left eye together with other bruises and marks. The contents of his pockets had not been disturbed, his purse containing $55 being found intact. A physician expressed the opinion that the weapon used was a 'pretty heavy club with nails in it.'
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is not challenged, and so the facts need not be outlined further than as they may have application to the points preserved for review, and to give an understanding of the general situation. It appears from the state's evidence that in December preceding the homicide in February, John May (an elderly person known as 'Uncle Boney') had conveyed the farm to Orma Clark, wife of appellant, but 21 days later he was adjudged incompetent, and a guardian was appointed for him. (The conveyance was set aside in an action brought by the guardian subsequent to the death of Charlie Cobb.) It appears that ill feeling existed on the part of appellant and his wife toward deceased because of the latter's testimony at Uncle Boney's sanity hearing at which he had apparently agreed (or, at least, was supposed) to testify 'for him [May] not being crazy,' as put by one of the witnesses, and this he failed to do.
The wives of appellant and deceased (Orma Clark and Ruby Cobb), together with one Clarence Wood (who lived at the Clark home), were also charged with first degree murder in the killing. Indeed, Ruby (who had entered a plea of guilty, but not yet sentenced) took the stand and testified for the state, as did Wood. From Ruby's testimony (and that of others to which reference will be made later) the jury would have been warranted in finding that she (Ruby), being quite anxious to get rid of her husband, and, in the wake of the feeling engendered by his testimony at the sanity hearing, and seizing upon the opportunity created thereby, entered into a conspiracy with Orma Clark and Orma's husband, the appellant Arthur (and perhaps Wood) by which the dispatch of her husband was brought about at the hands of appellant under the circumstances above mentioned. Other facts will be stated in connection with the points to which they relate.
The motion to suppress (based on constitutional grounds) was directed against a paper-writing (later introduced at the trial as Exhibit 'G') and certain articles of clothing which were seized by the sheriff at appellant's home under circumstances about to be noticed. The court sustained the motion as to the articles of clothing, but overruled it as to Exhibit 'G,' which reads as follows:
'Feb. 7-1951
'To Orma Clark Kissee Mills, Mo.
'I will give you my two good cows if I don't get you your money in 4 days after it is done.
'Your Friend
'Ruby Cobb
'Keep this'
The state admits that this communication 'referred to doing away with the deceased.' The facts attending its seizure were admittedly these: After Orma Clark was arrested and placed in jail at Springfield, she told the Greene County sheriff where the note was located, and he in turn relayed this information to the Taney County sheriff. The latter, together with a deputy and highway patrolman, proceeded to appellant's home. They had a warrant for his arrest, but no search warrant. Appellant was not at home at that time, but his father and his four children were there. The sheriff asked the father if he had any objections to his 'looking around,' to which he replied, 'No, to go ahead.' (The father lived elsewhere, and was only temporarily at the home of his son.) The sheriff then went to a certain bedroom window and found the note above an unfinished casing. A bunch of rags had been stuffed on top of it. The sheriff seized the note and retained it, and, over appellant's objections, it was introduced at the trial. The state conceding the illegality of the seizure under Article I, Sec. 15, Const. of Mo. 1945, V.A.M.S., urges, first, that the question was not timely raised, and that such lack precludes its consideration in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clark
...The first trial resulted in a mistrial, a juror becoming sick. The second trial resulted in a life sentence, but the cause was remanded, 259 S.W.2d 813. The instant trial was in December, 1953. Appellant claims error in submitting the State's case, in giving and refusing instructions, in ad......
-
State v. Pinegar
...the admission of the seized evidence did not overwhelmingly tip the scales against appellant as it was held to have done in State v. Clark, 259 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.1953). Nor is it the "powerful" and "persuasive" evidence of the kind held in State v. Howell, 524 S.W.2d 11, 18(4) (Mo. banc 1975),......
-
State v. Hunt
...11.) However, we adopted the Federal rule in State v. Owens, 302 Mo. 348, 259 S.W. 100, 32 A.L.R. 383. (For recent cases see State v. Clark, Mo.Sup., 259 S.W.2d 813; State v. Cuezze, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 373; State v. Jones, 358 Mo. 398, 214 S.W.2d 705. This is now the established rule in th......