State v. Garrett
| Citation | 226 S.W. 4,285 Mo. 279 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 22246.,22246. |
| Parties | STATE v. GARRETT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Saline County; John A. Rich, Judge.
James W. Garrett was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant, James W. Garrett, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment was fixed at life imprisonment in the penitentiary. He has duly appealed.
This is the second time that this case has been in this court. The former appeal was from a like conviction and sentence. The opinion is reported in 276 Mo. 302, 207 S. W. 784. The former judgment was reversed because of an error in an instruction.
The facts in the present record are essentially the same as on the former trial, and for that reason we adopt the lucid statement of facts prepared by White, C., and set forth in State v. Garrett, supra, as applicable here, with the exceptions hereinafter noted.
There was evidence in behalf of the defendant upon the last trial that he frequently carried a large roll of money, amount not stated, and that was seen with such a roll a short time before as well as immediately after Mrs. Campbell, the deceased, had been murdered. As upon the former hearing, so in the trial now in review, defendant did not testify in his own behalf, and, as before, certain relatives with whom defendant claimed he had been visiting at Moberly, Mo., at such a time as made it impossible that he could have been at New Franklin, the scene of the tragedy, when the murder was committed, also failed to testify. The defense was an alibi, and upon the last trial defendant produced one or two witnesses, in addition to the two who testified on the first trial, in support of that defense.
The court gave eight instructions in behalf of the state, and thirteen at the instance of the defendant, and refused two asked by the defendant.
R. M. Reynolds, of Marshall, for appellant.
Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and C. P. Le Mire, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
(after stating the facts as above). Appellant is not represented by counsel in this court. We are therefore relegated to our own study of the record and to the motion for a new trial for information concerning any errors which may have occurred in the trial court.
The motion for a new trial is voluminous. In 13 printed pages it sets forth 28 distinct grounds, ranging from an allegation in the first ground that "the verdict is against the law" to a final charge in the twenty-eighth assignment that "the defendant has not had a fair and impartial trial." The whole course and conduct of the trial is assailed from the examination of the jurors upon their voir dire to the alleged action of the trial judge in leaving the courthouse after the cause had been submitted to the jury. We decline to take up these charges seriatim and discuss them separately. We have so often held that vague generalities and mere assertions in motions for a new trial are valueless and raise no point for appellate consideration that we do not think it necessary to reiterate the reasons upon which that conclusion is based. Those in need of information upon that point may consult State v. Scott, 214 Mo. 257, 113 S. W. 1069, and State v. Mann, 217 S. W. loc. cit. 69, and the authorities there cited.
We will therefore rule specifically upon such matters in this motion as, upon a careful reading of the record, approximating 500 typewritten pages, may appear to us to be worthy of separate mention, and as to the remainder content ourselves with the general statement that we find them devoid of merit.
I. The record discloses that, contrary to the grounds assigned in the motion for a new trial, the verdict is not against the law nor against the evidence, nor against both the law and the evidence, nor against the weight of the evidence, nor lacking in substantial evidence to support it, nor is the verdict, so far as this record discloses, the result of passion or prejudice, and appellant's demurrer to the evidence was therefore properly overruled.
II. The eight instructions given in behalf of the state, all of which are assailed in the motion for a new trial, are in time-honored form and follow oft-approved precedents. Of these instructions those numbered 6, 7, and 8 are specifically questioned by appellant, but the criticisms urged against them are, we think, hypertechnical. Instruction numbered 6 is the usual instruction with reference to the weight and credibility of the evidence, and has been approved time out of mind. State v. Shelton, 223 Mo. 118, 122 S. W. 732. Instruction numbered 7, relating to the presence or absence of motive, was expressly approved in the noted case of State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44, loc. cit. 52, 38 S. W. 554, 39 S. W. 266, and has been approved in many subsequent cases in substantially the form in which it was given in this case. Instruction numbered 8 is to the effect that, if the jury found from the evidence that any statements made by the accused were not voluntary, then the jury should disregard such statements. The criticism is, in effect, that the word "voluntary" was not defined. No definition was necessary, but, if appellant desired that such a definition should be given, it was his duty to ask the court by its instructions to define that term. This he did not do, and he cannot now be heard to complain. While it is the duty of the court in criminal cases to instruct the jury, whether requested to do so or not, it is not error for the court to fail to instruct upon matters which are in their nature purely collateral or incidental. The duty to instruct the jury in writing is a duty arising from a statutory command, and the statute (section 5231, Rev. Stats. Mo. 1909) only requires instructions to be given to the jury upon matters "which are necessary for their information in giving their verdict." Questions relating to good character (State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. loc. cit. 107, 13 S. W. 938), testimony of accomplices (State v. Weatherman, 202 Mo. 3, 100 S. W. 482), and similar matters are collateral in their character (State v. Lackey, 230 Mo. 707, loc. cit. 720, 132 S. W. 602), and so, we think, was the definition of the word "voluntary" in this instance. It follows that there was no error in the action of the trial court with respect to the eighth instruction in this case. For the same reason there was no error in the failure to instruct with reference to the purpose of the admission of certain evidence.
III. Error is also asserted in refusing to give instruction marked D 2 in behalf of appellant. This instruction reads as follows:
This instruction was properly refused for the reason that it was directly contrary to the facts shown by the evidence and to proper and legitimate inferences to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642, loc. cit. 651, 32 S. W. 1124. The instructions, taken as a whole, were full and complete and fairly stated the applicable law.
IV. As another ground for a new trial,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker
... ... 478, 82 S.W. 5; State v. McKinney, 254 Mo. 688, 163 S.W. 822; see Doran v. Ross, 240 Mo.App. 823, 221 S.W.2d 756 ... 4 State v. Church, 199 Mo. 605, 98 S.W. 16; Doran v. Ross, supra, 240 Mo.App. 823, 221 S.W.2d 756; State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 83 S.W.2d 98, 106; State v. Garrett, 285 Mo. 279, 226 S.W. 4 ... 5 We note that it appeared on voir dire that a majority of the panel members had received a letter signed 'The Reverend Doctor Merle E. Parker'; but the record does not show the content of this communication, and we cannot be concerned with it here. If it was an ... ...
-
State v. McGee
... ... Appellant's assignment challenging the array of jurors on account of ... 83 S.W.2d 106 ... political affiliations is without merit for a number of reasons, among which are: Any challenge to the array should be timely made in writing. This was not done. [State v. Garrett, 285 Mo. 279, 288, 226 S.W. 4, 7(5), and cases cited; State v. Brennan, 164 Mo. 487, 504, 65 S.W. 325, 329(1).] After proceeding with challenges to the polls, appellant was precluded from thereafter challenging the array, State v. Taylor, 134 Mo. 109, 143, 35 S.W. 92, 99(i); State v. Clark, 121 Mo ... ...
-
State v. Enochs
... ... reasons stated in paragraph II of this opinion the judgment ... is reversed and the cause remanded. All concur ... --------- ... [*]See, also, State v. London (Mo. Div. 2), ... 295 S.W. 547, 549; State v. English, 308 Mo. 695, 708, 274 ... S.W. 470, 474; State v. Garrett ... ...
-
Varble v. Whitecotton
...190 S.W.2d 244 354 Mo. 570 Eri E. Varble, Petitioner, v. Thomas E. Whitecotton, Warden, Missouri State Penitentiary No. 39648Supreme Court of MissouriNovember 5, 1945 ... Habeas ... Writ ... quashed and ... State v ... Rouner, 333 Mo. 1236, 64 S.W.2d 916; State v. Perno ... (Mo.), 23 S.W.2d 87; State v. Garrett, 285 Mo ... 279, 226 S.W. 4; Sec. 698 R.S. 1939. Because of the argument ... advanced which we will next refer to there can be no question ... of ... ...