State v. Coff
| Decision Date | 15 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 19312.,19312. |
| Parties | STATE v. COFF. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.
James Coff was convicted of manslaughter in the fourth degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Under an indictment charging him with murder in the second degree, defendant was tried in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, found guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree, and his punishment assessed at 2 years in the penitentiary. Defendant duly perfected an appeal.
There was evidence tending to establish the following facts:
At the time of the tragedy, it appears that defendant, a blacksmith, 28 years of age, resided with his parents at No. 3909 Kennerly avenue, in St. Louis, Mo. W. A. Conway, together with his wife and 14 year old sister were tenants of the second story of the house next door to the east, being No. 3907 Kennerly avenue; the lower portion of that house being occupied by a family by the name of Hazlit.
About a week before this tragedy, Benjamin F. Conway, the father of W. A. Conway, came from his home in Kentucky to make his son a visit. Benjamin F. Conway is the deceased.
The Conway family had been living in this house about 4½ months, and it appears that, during that time, considerable ill feeling had grown up between the women of the two households, the nature of which is not disclosed. About 2 months prior to the tragedy, the Coffs had caused to be erected at the rear of their premises, and on the side next to the house occupied by the Conways, a high brick wall so as to prevent persons in the Conway house from seeing persons to the rear of the Coff house. A sheet iron shutter or shield was also erected on the Coff premises, immediately in front of one of the windows in the Conway house.
The killing occurred on September 4, 1914. The owner of the Conway house had employed a painter to paint the same. The space between the two houses was about 2½ feet. The day before the tragedy the painter had placed the bottom of his ladder over on the Coff premises and, in doing so, had slightly injured a hedge belonging to the Coffs. Mrs. Coff called a policeman and had the painter remove the ladder.
The next day, about 11 a. m., W. A. Conway and the owner of the house in which he lived were out in the front yard looking at the painting. The painter was painting on the front porch, but was not using a ladder. Mrs. Coff was sitting on her front porch. She exhibited a revolver and stated to W. A. Conway that if they came over on her premises they would be killed. W. A. Conway replied that he would have her arrested. A policeman was called, and, after a short conversation, W. A. Conway and his wife and the owner of the building proceeded down to the Municipal Courts Building for the purpose of having a warrant issued. It appears that the defendant returned to his home just about the time that the Conways started down town, and, while the Conways were waiting for a street car, they saw the defendant coming toward them, and they moved down the street two or three blocks to catch a car.
That same evening, about 6 o'clock, W. A. Conway and his wife started out for a little walk. In a few minutes Benjamin F. Conway (the deceased) and his 14 year old daughter started down the street to mail a letter. They overtook W. A. Conway and his wife, who had stopped to observe a show window, and asked them to wait while they went down the street and mailed a letter. The deceased and his daughter proceeded about a half block and, at this time, the defendant, on his way home from work, passed W. A. Conway and his wife on the street. (In order that the testimony may be better understood, we will refer to W. A. Conway as Conway, Jr., and Benjamin F. Conway, the deceased, as Conway, Sr.) Defendant as he approached Conway, Jr., said, "You G_____ d____ s____ of a b____, I am going to kill you for insulting my mother." Conway, Jr., started to say, "I didn't insult your mother," but before he could say it, defendant knocked him down. Conway, Jr., then got up, and defendant again knocked him down and was on top of Conway, beating him, when Conway's wife called for Conway, Sr., who was then about a half block away. Conway, Sr., ran over to the scene of the fight, carrying the letter in his hand, and threw something which appeared to some of the witnesses to be a paper and called out to the two men to stop. Defendant then turned upon Conway, Sr., and struck him a blow which felled him to his knees. Conway, Sr., arose and defendant struck him another blow, which knocked him down, and, as he fell, his head struck the curbstone. Defendant then kicked Conway, Sr., several times, and he rolled into the gutter unconscious. He never regained consciousness, and died the following day at a hospital.
The evidence upon the part of the state tends to show that neither Conway, Jr., nor Conway, Sr., struck at the defendant. Conway, Jr.'s, testimony was corroborated by the following eyewitnesses to the fight, to wit: Alex Campbell, Catherine M. Conway, Frank D. Williams, and Elizabeth Conway.
The deputy physician to the coroner testified that he made an examination of the body of the deceased and described the deceased as being a white male, about 50 years of age. He found a fracture of the skull, about 3 inches long, on the left side of the head, extending down into the base of the skull.
The evidence upon the part of the defense tends to establish the following facts:
Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, said that he was going home from work about 6 o'clock and that Conway, Jr., stopped him at the corner of Maffitt street and accused him of using vulgar language in the presence of Mrs. Conway. Defendant attempted to reply by telling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brinkley
... ... In this situation ... it [354 Mo. 1070] cannot be denied that he was entitled to ... instructions on justifiable and excusable homicide as against ... second degree murder, insofar as his testimony tendered an ... issue thereon. A case in point is State v. Coff, 267 ... Mo. 14, 21, 183 S.W. 287, 289(2) ... Appellant ... further challenges instruction No. 2 as to form. Although it ... dealt only with manslaughter and he was not convicted of that ... crime but of the greater crime of murder, his view apparently ... is that if the ... ...
-
State v. Crowley
...had been made. Insofar as the language quoted may be thought to be an implied holding that a request is necessary, it is contrary to the Coff case, supra, and not of harmony with the authorities generally. It is apparent, however, that it was not intended to overrule or impair the authority......
-
State v. Talbert
... ... (3) It was error for the court ... to neglect and fail to instruct the jury on misadventure as a ... part of the law of the case. Sec. 4380, R. S. 1939; State ... v. Crowley, 139 S.W.2d l. c. 475; 13 R. C. L., sec. 166, ... p. 864; 4 Warren on Homicide, sec. 340, p. 306; State v ... Coff, 267 Mo. 14, 183 S.W. 287; State v ... Martin, 162 S.W.2d l. c. 852. (4) The court erred ... prejudicially in refusing and failing to give defendant's ... proffered Instruction C because there was evidence that ... defendant had not entered into any conspiracy with Leo Lyles, ... Arthur Lee ... ...
-
State v. Martin
... ... 244. (10) The court did not err in giving instruction number ... six for the reason that instruction number six was a proper ... declaration of law and did not conflict with Instruction ... d. State v. Crowley, 139 S.W.2d 473; State v ... Markel, 77 S.W.2d 112; State v. Coff, 267 Mo ... 14; State v. Reagan, 108 S.W.2d 391. (11) Assignment ... number eight is not well taken. State v. Rodgers, ... 102 S.W.2d 566. (12) Instruction 3 was a proper instruction ... and properly referred to the defense of the defendant as ... defined in Instruction 6, and ... ...