State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 17 December 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 35662.,35662. |
| Citation | 111 S.W.2d 101 |
| Parties | STATE v. CLARK. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Stoddard County; James V. Billings, Judge.
Edgar Clark was convicted of second degree murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., Olliver W. Nolen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arthur O'Keefe, of Jefferson City, for the State.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree. His punishment was fixed at 10 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From the sentence imposed he appealed.
Appellant is charged with having murdered Dr. B. L. Greathouse, 64 years of age, who lived in Puxico, Stoddard county, Mo. Dr. Greathouse had married a sister of appellant, Clark. The evidence disclosed that the doctor had mistreated his wife and at one time had assaulted her; that on another occasion he had stood by and watched his wife mistreated by his son of a previous marriage. Appellant was a young man about 26 years of age. He had been away from Puxico, but had returned there a few months before the assault upon Dr. Greathouse which resulted in his death. This occurred on Easter Sunday, April 12, 1936. The appellant testified that he overheard his parents speak of the trouble their daughter was having with the doctor and the brutal treatment she had received from him. He also testified that he had previously heard that his sister was having trouble with the doctor, but this was the first information he had of the brutal treatment. He testified that shortly thereafter, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, he left home, and after loafing about town for some time went to the home of Dr. Greathouse for the express purpose of talking to his sister about her troubles; that he did not expect the doctor to be home, but when he arrived there and knocked Dr. Greathouse opened the door and asked him what he wanted; that he then informed the doctor he wished to speak to his sister about her trouble with him, the doctor; whereupon Dr. Greathouse said to him, "don't interfere with my business," shook his fist in his face and told him to get away from there; that the doctor acted as if he were going to strike him, and thereupon he struck the doctor, knocking him over a porch swing; that the doctor then asked him not to strike any more, and he did not. Appellant testified that he went home and did not know that he had seriously injured the doctor; that he had no intention of seriously injuring him. The State introduced evidence that the doctor had received a severe wound on his forehead which extended to the skull; that he had numerous bruises on his body, and his first lumbar vertebra was crushed; that the doctor was taken to a hospital where he was treated; that on May 28, 1936, he suffered a stroke of paralysis from which he died. A doctor who waited on Dr. Greathouse testified that the paralysis was caused by the crushed vertebra. The State also introduced evidence of statements made by the appellant after the assault, which indicated malice on the part of appellant. One witness testified that appellant informed him he had pushed the doctor's head through a porch swing. Other witnesses testified that appellant spoke in a rather boastful manner of the assault that he had perpetrated upon Dr. Greathouse.
Appellant was represented by able counsel at the trial, but has filed no brief in this court. We find ten assignments of error in the motion for new trial. Many of them do not present anything for our review. For example, the fourth assignment reads as follows:
No reason is assigned why the X-ray pictures were not admissible in evidence. Such assignments do not present anything for our review. We will not discuss the other assignments which are of the same nature.
Appellant has presented for our review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of murder in the second degree. We are of the opinion that the evidence amply justified the verdict. It is true that appellant stated he struck in self-defense and did not intend to seriously harm the doctor, yet, the jury were not bound to believe that story. The numerous bruises on the body of Dr. Greathouse, the severe wound on his forehead, and the crushed vertebra, were evidence of a brutal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brinkley
...ground that there was no evidence of malice. 30 C.J., secs. 367, 368; 40 C.J., secs. 206, 107; State v. Burnett, 184 S.W.2d 57; State v. Clark, 111 S.W.2d 101; State Hyland, 144 Mo. 302, 46 S.W. 195; State v. John, 172 Mo. 220, 72 S.W. 525; State v. Lloyd, 87 S.W.2d 418, 337 Mo. 990; State ......
-
State v. Rizor
...Law and Practice (3rd Ed.), sec. 472, p. 415; State v. Mitchell, 252 S.W. 383; State v. Carter, 345 Mo. 74, 131 S.W.2d 546; State v. Clark, 111 S.W.2d 101. (2) The verdict of the jury is in approved form and assessed a penalty in accordance with the charge in the information. The verdict in......
-
State v. Perkins
...in the second degree and the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal. State v. Clark, Mo., 111 S.W.2d 101, 102; State v. Battles, 357 Mo. 1223, 212 S.W.2d 753, 756; State v. Bayless, 362 Mo. 109, 240 S.W.2d 114, 120; State v. Thomas, Mo., 309......
-
State v. Jensen
...the jury was warranted in finding that she intended the consequences of her acts.' For other similar holdings, see State v. Clark, Mo.Sup., 111 S.W.2d 101; State v. Carter, 345 Mo. 74, 131 S.W.2d 546; Comm. v. Lisowski, 274 Pa. 222, 117 A. 794, Comm. v. Guida, 298 Pa. 370, 148 A. 501; State......