State v. Fredericks
| Decision Date | 20 November 1896 |
| Citation | 37 S.W. 832,136 Mo. 51 |
| Parties | The State v. Fredericks and Langon, Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Criminal Court. -- Hon. R. E. Culver, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Charles F. Strop, L. J. Eastin, and Harl & Harl for appellants.
(1) It is the duty of the trial court to give all necessary instructions, whether asked to do so or not, and where instructions are offered which are objectionable, the court should give such as the law requires. State v Stonum, 62 Mo. 596; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo 568; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 592. (2) The court erred in failing to instruct on the theory of self-defense as to each defendant. A defendant who has testified is entitled to have instructions predicated on the facts sworn to by him. State v. Anderson, 86 Mo. 309; State v Banks, 73 Mo. 592; State v. Tate, 12 Mo.App. 327. (3) The court erred against defendant Fredericks, in refusing to give the sixth instruction, asked by the defendants. A person, himself in the peace, has the right and is legally bound to attempt to quell an affray which he sees in progress, and, if assaulted while making this attempt, the right of self-defense will not be denied him. 2 Bishop's Criminal Law, sec. 573, et seq. (4) The court erred in refusing instruction number 10, asked by defendant. State v. Reynolds, 126 Mo. 516; Shadle v. State, 34 Tex. 572; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93; U. S. v. Small, 1 Curtis, C. C. 241; People v. Roderigo, 69 Cal. 601; Doering v. State, 19 Am. Rep. (Ind.) 669; State v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342. (5) The court erred in failing to instruct upon the question of common assault. State v. Reynolds, 126 Mo. 516; State v. Kelly, 16 Mo.App. 214; State v. Dineen, 10 Minn. 325. (6) The court erred in giving of its own motion, instructions 5 and 6 because they assume the existence of a conspiracy.
R. F. Walker, attorney general, and A. B. Duncan, prosecuting attorney, for the state.
(1) The second count, the one under which the defendants were convicted, is sufficient and follows the language of the statute under which it was drawn. R. S. 1889, sec. 3489. (2) The verdict of the jury was neither against the weight of the evidence nor contrary to the law as declared by the court, but on the other hand was in harmony with the law and supported by the testimony of all the disinterested parties who saw the difficulty and showed the defendants guilty beyond question. It is only where there is a total failure of proof that this court will interfere. State v. Punshon, 124 Mo. 448; State v. Fischer, 124 Mo. 460. (3) It is ridiculous to assert under the testimony in this case that the punishment assessed by the jury was unusual, extreme and cruel; they were guilty of felonious assault with intent to kill Crossland and were only prevented by the intervention of the persons present; there was not an element of common assault. (4) Complaint is made of the instructions given upon the part of the state. It will be observed from the reading of the instructions that they are in the usual form many times approved by this court, and clearly declare the law applicable under the indictment and the testimony; in fact, they covered the entire case and rendered it unnecessary to give any of the instructions asked by the defendants.
The defendants were jointly indicted at the June term, 1895, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, and, after a continuance, were duly arraigned and tried and were convicted of a felonious assault upon one J. R. A. Crossland.
The facts appear to be that J. R. A. Crossland, the prosecuting witness, was a negro doctor in St. Joseph; defendant Langon was a negro school teacher in a public school in said city, and defendant Fredericks was the editor of a newspaper published for the negro population of that city and vicinity. Controversies had arisen as to the conduct of the public schools for the negroes in St. Joseph, in which Crossland was arrayed on the one side and Fredericks and Langon on the other. Crossland and his faction were endeavoring to have Langon removed.
On the night of the assault in question Crossland and his adherents had held a meeting for the purpose of passing resolutions derogatory to Langon and as defendants charge had gone to Crossland's office to take further steps to have these resolutions published. Langon having heard of these resolutions started, as he claims, to Crossland's office to learn their exact nature before publication. Langon asserts that there had been a similar difference prior to this time and Crossland had invited Langon to call on him in the future and learn the true facts. Fredericks accompanied Langon to the office of Crossland but remained on the street while Langon went in.
As to the occurrences inside of the office there is an "irreconcilable conflict" in the evidence of the contending parties. The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that after Langon entered Crossland's office he became angry, and assaulted said Crossland with a stick and a pair of metal knuckles. The testimony on the part of the state is conflicting as to whether Langon ever struck Crossland with said knuckles, three of the state's witnesses testifying that he did not strike Crossland, but that the knuckles were taken away from him immediately upon his attempting to take them out of his pocket. None of the witnesses testified that Crossland was injured at all by said knuckles. Crossland and one other witness testified that Langon struck at Crossland and slightly fractured his (Crossland's) tooth. Langon himself denied ever having the knuckles or attempting to use them, but stated that, on the contrary, upon his being seated in Crossland's office, he was assaulted by Crossland and others present, and that he did nothing whatever except attempt to repel the assault made upon him and to leave Crossland's office.
While there is some conflict as to details in the testimony, as to what occurred during the difficulty prior to the entrance of Fredericks and after the beginning of the affray, the testimony shows that Langon, during the difficulty, was thrown down, beaten, bruised, and badly used. This state of affairs had existed for a period of four or five minutes when Fredericks, who had been in the neighborhood, both seeing and hearing the difficulty, entered the office. Up to this...
To continue reading
Request your trial