State v. Deyo
| Decision Date | 08 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 50582,50582,2 |
| Citation | 387 S.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Grace DEYO, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., James J. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Sam Appleby, Ozark, Edward R. Boyle, Clear Lake, Iowa, Clyde Rogers, Gainesville, for appellant.
Defendant Grace Deyo and one Bill Shindler were charged jointly with murder in the first degree by poison of Kenneth V. Deyo, husband of Grace Deyo. A severance was granted. Grace Deyo was tried and convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, that conviction was reversed and the case remanded. See State v. Deyo, Mo., 358 S.W.2d 816. The case was retried and defendant Grace Deyo again was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. A timely motion for new trial was filed and overruled, and this appeal was taken.
The evidence in the second trial was substantially the same as that in the first trial. The opinion on the first appeal detailed that evidence. It would serve no useful purpose to recite it again, and it will not be repeated herein except insofar as necessary in the consideration of specific issues.
Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove a conspiracy between appellant and Bill Shindler, and, additionally, that there was no evidence of any overt act by appellant, and that her motion for judgment of acquittal should have been sustained for those reasons. These issues were raised by appellant on the prior appeal, and this court held that the evidence was sufficient to show the existence of a conspiracy, and that evidence of an overt act by appellant under those circumstances was unnecessary. State v. Deyo, supra, 358 S.W.2d 816, 822, , .
Appellant also complains that the trial court erred in admitting evidence, including statements of appellant, before the corpus delicti was proved. This same issue was raised on the prior appeal, and this court held that it is not essential that the independent proof of the corpus delicti come first in the order of proof. 358 S.W.2d 816, 819. In addition, appellant raises the proposition that there was no sufficient proof of the corpus delicti, but that question was ruled against appellant on the prior appeal. 358 S.W.2d 816, 821.
Appellant also complains of the admission of proof of certain remarks of Bill Shindler on the basis that these were not made in the presence of appellant and were hearsay. This point was ruled against appellant on the prior appeal. 358 S.W.2d 816, 824. In view of the fact that there was evidence of a conspiracy, the statements of one of the conspirators were admissible against the other conspirator.
Appellant complains of the giving of Instruction No. 3 defining conspiracy, which was as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury that a conspiracy, as that term is used in these instructions, means a combination of two or more persons who use concerted action to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose.'
No authority is cited by appellant in support of her position. A substantially similar instruction was approved by this court in State v. Hill, 273 Mo. 329, 201 S.W. 58. See also 2 Raymond's Missouri Instructions, Section 3092. This point is ruled against appellant.
The State relied heavily on statements, both oral and written, of the defendant Grace Deyo. Her written statement was received in evidence as State's Exhibit 'A'. Omitting caption and signatures, it read as follows:
'I have read the above statement consisting of one (1) typewritten page, and it is the truth to the best of my knowledge.
'Signed this 1st day of October, 1959 at the Sheriff's Office in Mason City Iowa, in the presence of the above named Officers.'
The defense contended that this statement of Grace Deyo was not a voluntary one. In addition, the defense introduced testimony of Herman Melton, a teacher in special education, and Professor James Edward Bane, a psychology teacher at Southwest Missouri State College. Mr. Melton testified that he gave Grace Deyo the Kuhlman-Anderson test and the results disclosed an I.Q. of 74 and a mental age of 12. Professor Bane administered the revised Stanford-Binet test and Grace Deyo performed on the level of a normal 10-10 1/2-year-old person, and had an I.Q. of 65. Professor Bane examined State's Exhibit 'A' and then testified that, based on his experience and his test of Grace Deyo, he was of the opinion that she could not have made that statement. He was cross-examined extensively, but insisted that he would not expect her to do as well as that statement, or to be familiar with some of the words used in the statement.
The court gave three instructions which dealt with statements of the defendant. These were Instructions Nos. 11, 12 and 13, which were as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury that if verbal statements of the defendant have been testified to in this case, they are to be received by you with great caution on account of the liability of witnesses to forget or misunderstand what was really said or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith
...of the court which direct the jury to disregard it entirely if the jury finds the confession was not voluntarily made. State v. Deyo, Mo., 387 S.W.2d 561, 564, 565 (5, 6); State v. Howard, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 701, 702(1).' (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Falbo, Mo., 333 S.W.2d 279, 286(7, 8......
-
State v. Washington, 51275
...of the court which direct the jury to disregard it entirely if the jury finds the confession was not voluntarily made. State v. Deyo, Mo., 387 S.W.2d 561, 564, 565[5, 6]; State v. Howard, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 701, 702. If the defendant had any complaint that the practice was not followed, he had......
-
State v. Pippenger, 13664
...questioning, and that the accused's inculpatory statements were therefore inadmissible. Id. at 763. Defendant also relies on State v. Deyo, 387 S.W.2d 561 (Mo.1965), for the proposition that evidence of an accused's mental state is proper to impair or destroy a confession. In Deyo, however,......
-
State v. Hyster, 57491
...348; People v. Lara (1967), 67 Cal.2d 365, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202, 217(19, 20).' Also pertinent is our decision in State v. Deyo, 387 S.W.2d 561, 565 (Mo.1965), wherein the court quoted with approval the following statement from 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 828, p. 228: "If mental incap......