State v. Coleman

Citation97 S.W. 574,199 Mo. 112
PartiesSTATE v. COLEMAN.
Decision Date20 November 1906
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chariton County; John P. Butler, Judge.

Jasper Coleman was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is here upon appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Chariton county, convicting the defendant of murder in the second degree. This case was in this court on a former appeal, and is reported in 186 Mo., at page 151, 84 S. W. 978, 69 L. R. A. 381. On that appeal it was held by this court that the information on which the defendant was tried and convicted was defective, in that in the concluding part thereof the prosecuting attorney omitted to use the words "upon his oath," which were held essential in charging the crime of murder in the first degree. The case was then reversed, and remanded for a new trial. After the reversal and remanding of said cause to the circuit court of Chariton county, at the September term, 1905, of the circuit court of said county, the prosecuting attorney of said county filed an amended information, based upon an amended affidavit of Robert Cox, charging the defendant with the crime of murder in the first degree for the killing of Rufus Cox by shooting him with a revolver at the said county on the 8th day of August, 1903. At the same term of said court the prosecuting attorney entered a nolle prosequi as to the charge of murder in the first degree, and elected to prosecute the defendant on the charge of murder in the second degree. At the February term, 1906, of said court, the defendant filed a motion to quash the information, which motion being overruled by the court, the defendant filed an application for a continuance, which was also overruled. The defendant then waived a formal arraignment, entered a plea of not guilty, and was put upon his trial.

It is conceded by both respondent and the appellant that the facts upon the former appeal are sufficiently stated to enable the court upon this appeal to determine the legal propositions disclosed by the record; therefore we deem it unnecessary to burden this opinion with a restatement of the evidence, and shall content ourselves with referring to the case of State v. Coleman, 186 Mo. 151, 84 S. W. 978, 69 L. R. A. 381, where the controlling facts of this cause are fully recited. At the close of the evidence the court gave 21 instructions, 10 on behalf of the state and 11 on behalf of the defendant, and there were 5 other instructions requested by the defendant, which were by the court refused. We have carefully read all of the instructions given and those refused in this cause, and, as the law applicable to this case was so fully discussed on the former appeal, we see no necessity for burdening this opinion with a reproduction of the instructions given or those refused. Upon the submission of the cause to the jury, they returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree, and assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 12 years. Timely motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed, and by the court overruled. Sentence and judgment was rendered by the court in accordance with the verdict, and from this judgment the defendant prosecuted this appeal, and the record is now before us for consideration.

John & Johnson and Ball & Sparrow, for appellant. The Attorney General and John Kennish, for the State.

FOX, J. (after stating the facts).

In the brief of appellant it is urged, first, that the court erred in refusing to quash the amended information filed by the prosecuting attorney after said cause was remanded to the Chariton county circuit court; second, that the court erred in denying the appellant's application for a continuance; third, that the court erred in permitting counsel who had been employed in the case to assist the state's representative to close the argument for the state, over the objections and protests of the defendant.

The complaints as indicated above substantially embrace all the assignments of error contained in the brief of counsel for appellant. This cause having been before this court upon a former appeal, where the law and the facts were so fully discussed, doubtless furnishes a very good...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • State v. Kusel
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 27, 1923
    ......308] . where no change of venue had been taken, held, both previous. as well as subsequent to the Bartlett case, that amendments. could be made to an information. ( State v. Johnson, . 93 Mo. 317, 6 S.W. 77; State v. Pyscher, 179 Mo. 140, 77 S.W. 836; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97. S.W. 574.) That too is held in Oklahoma; ( Little v. State. (Okla. Crim.) 21 Okla. Crim. 1, 204 P. 305.). . . Whatever,. however, we may think of the soundness of these decisions,. they are based upon constitutional provisions which we do not. find in this ......
  • Turner v. M.-K.-T. Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 4, 1940
    ......Welp v. Bogy, 218 Mo. App. 414, 277 S.W. 600; 20 Am. Jur. 587; 22 C.J. 431; State v. Riddle, 179 Mo. 287, 78 S.W. 606. Evidence of such type is never admissible where the witness testifies directly in the case on trial, either by ...2176, 2177; Stein v. Swensen, 49 N.W. 55; 22 C.J. 432; McFarland v. U.S. Mut. Acc. Assn., 124 Mo. 204, 27 S.W. 436; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97 S.W. 574; Vest v. S.S. Kresge Co., 213 S.W. 168; Schulz v. Bowers, 210 Mo. App. 574, 223 S.W. 725. In giving a deposition a witness ......
  • State v. Gregory
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 30, 1936
    ...... State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 162 S.W. 622; State v. Johnson, 115 Mo. 480, 22 S.W. 463; State v. Lee, 56 Mo. 165; State v. Rose, 92 Mo. 201, 4. S.W. 733; State v. Ripey, 229 Mo. 657, 129 S.W. 646;. State v. Evans, 65 Mo. 574; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97 S.W. 574. (5) The court erred. in permitting R. L. Ward, associate counsel for the State, on. cross-examination of defendant's witness, Dessie. Crawford, to ask the witness, and permitting the witness to. testify as to what he saw at the Thompson filling station,. and as to ......
  • State v. Settle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 17, 1932
    ...... exceptions in order that the ruling may be for review in this. court. State v. Frey, 289 S.W. 911; State v. Miller, 270 S.W. 293; State v. Sollars, 200. S.W. 1052; State v. Humfeld, 253 Mo. 340; State. v. Finley, 234 Mo. 603; State v. McKay, 225 Mo. 544; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 211; State v. Fraker, 137 Mo. 258; State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 444; State v. Cowan, 146 Mo.App. 621; State v. Henderson, 109. Mo. 292; State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662; State v. Thurston, 83 Mo. 271; State v. Gee, 79 Mo. 313;. State v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT