State v. Gillespie

• Decision Date: 13 June 1960
• Docket Number: Nos. 47734,47737,No. 2,s. 47734,2
• Citation: 336 S.W.2d 677
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jack GILLESPIE, alias Jack Masoner, Appellant. STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Joseph NOVOGRADAC, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 677

336 S.W.2d 677

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jack GILLESPIE, alias Jack Masoner, Appellant.

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Joseph NOVOGRADAC, Appellant.

Nos. 47734, 47737.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 13, 1960 Appellants' Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Court En Banc Denied. July 11, 1960.

Louis A. Reale, Stanford M. Katz, Kansas City, for appellants.

John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., W. H. Bates, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

EAGER, Judge.

The defendants were tried jointly and convicted of felonious assault, with malice, on one William Messer. The jury assessed the punishment of each at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of twenty-five years. The occurrences giving rise to the prosecution took place in the Jackson County Jail in Kansas City on January 26-30, 1959. Messer was a prisoner there as were also the defendants and the witnesses Jorld Rutledge and Billy Dean Harter. We find it necessary to state the facts in some detail.

All the participants were occupants of a section of the jail described as 'D Tank'; this was on the twelfth floor of the Courthouse building. It consisted of an area perhaps 30 x 40 feet, with an open space or 'bull pen' in the center; there were showers, toilets and other facilities at one end, and six eight-man cells ranged along one side. The cells were separated from the center room by a barred runway. There were tables and benches in the large room, and apparently all inmates had access to all parts of the place. No deputy sheriffs or other guards were on duty inside this area, and apparently they came in only occasionally, with food or on other specific errands. At this particular time, and evidently for a time long past, a practice had grown up of permitting a so-called 'key man,' with assistance from his associates who stayed in the 'key-cell,' to control and supervise the internal functioning and operations of the 'tank,' and, to a large extent, of its inmates. At this time the so-called 'key man' was one Don Reed; his cellmates, sometimes referred to as 'key men,' were these defendants, and inmates Kukovich, Snow, Turner and Thomas. These men occupied the key cell, No. 6; Reed, with their assistance, assigned the prisoners to cells, distributed the food, and assigned the menial duties to others, including all cleaning and washing dishes; it also appears that Reed, or he and his associates, compiled the list of those entitled to go on sick call. It was not shown how Reed was chosen for this supervisory position. By the admission of one defendant, these men at least got more food than the others, and they were apparently relieved of the menial duties.

The evidence was such that the jury could reasonably find all the facts now related. Soon after Messer entered the jail in January 1959, these key men, including the present defendants, made him take a series of cold showers. It was claimed by one defendant in attempted explanation that Messer did not take enough baths, but this was disputed in other testimony. In any event, Messer soon grew weary of these cold showers, so he ran out of the shower and beat on the 'tank' wall in an effort to attract the attention of a deputy sheriff. Thereupon the 'key men,' including these defendants, dragged him back to Cell No. 5 and there administered a severe beating with their fists. Other prisoners heard the blows and the 'hollering' of Messer. These defendants were identified as active participants and Novogradac partially confirmed his part on cross-examination. Messer received compound fractures of both lower jaws, in addition to sundry lesser injuries. At the conclusion of this beating defendant Gillespie made a 'rope' out of a wet towel, made Messer bend over, and beat him on the back until the blood was 'into a clot.' For the next three or four days various abuses and indignities to Messer continued, all inflicted or caused by the same group. They burned his abdomen and side seven times with live cigarettes; these two defendants and another forced Messer and another prisoner to engage in one or more sodomitish acts; Gillespie put a live cockroach in his mouth and another 'key man' forced him to swallow it by stepping on his stomach. At times the 'key men' would call Messer out of his cell, put a rope around his neck, make him get down on his hands and knees and bark, make him 'fight' another prisoner like a dog, and eat lunch meat off the floor. It was stated that Kukovich applied the rope, but that the other 'key men' would stand around. Two other prisoners received the same treatment, this being shown without objection. This performance was enforced by beating, when necessary, with these defendants specifically named as participants. It was shown, without objection, that during this period Reed refused on two or three occasions to let Messer go on sick call.

During these three or four days Messer remained in constant pain, was unable to eat, and found it difficult to drink water. On January 30, 1959, when taken out of jail for his preliminary hearing, one side of his jaw was hanging down and his face was severly swollen; his condition was thus finally discovered, and he was sent to the General Hospital. At that time it was 'mechanically impossible' for him to close his mouth completely. His jaws were operated upon under anesthetic, his teeth were wired together, and he was given medication to combat infection. He remained in the hospital until February 13th, returning from the jail at intervals thereafter for observation. His condition worsened, however, and he re-entered the hospital on March 30, with swelling, drainage and pain. Another operation was performed. The surgeon testified that he still could not tell in the latter part of May whether the patient would ever have normal function in his jaws or not.

There are no briefs on behalf of appellants, so we consider the matters properly raised in the motions for new trial. These motions contain many general and routine assignments which are wholly insufficient under Rule 27.20 V.A.M.S. It would unduly encumber this opinion to list all of these and to explain, with authorities, why each is insufficient. We do not propose to do so. These motions were prepared by counsel. The Bar should be reasonably well advised by now of the requirements of this rule.

Where necessary to distinguish between the separate motions, we shall do so. Defendant Gillespie asserts that the information is indefinite and vague, that it charges no criminal offense, and that it does not inform the defendant of the 'special character of the charge.' We find no merit in these contentions. The information charged that defendants did 'on or about the 28th day of January, 1959 * * * unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously and with malice aforethought, make an assault upon one William R. Messer, with their fists, likely to do great bodily harm, with the felonious intent the said William R. Messer to do great bodily harm * * *.' The allegation of malice brought the charge within Sec. 559.180 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.), as distinguished from the lesser charge of the following section, 559.190. The existence of malice is the basic distinction between the two offenses. State v. Cooper, 358 Mo. 269, 214 S.W.2d 19. Essentially, the allegations of the information follow the statute, and this is ordinarily sufficient. State v. Brown, Mo.App., 149 S.W.2d 414; State v. Groves, Mo., 159 S.W.2d 773. It alleges an assault on a specified person, the existence of malice, the means used, and the intent. The allegation of time is sufficient. Honey v. Kaiser, Banc, 352 Mo. 1120, 181 S.W.2d 492; Rule 24.11. Our principal consideration of this information has been directed at two points which we raise of our own motion, since we consider the information independently. These are: (1) May an assault with the fists suffice under Sec. 559.180? And, (2) Is an intent 'to do great bodily harm' sufficient? We answer both questions in the affirmative. As to (1): While ordinarily an assault under this section involves the use of a weapon, the words 'or by any other means or force likely to produce death or great bodily harm' have been used with a definite purpose and meaning. We hold that a violent and aggravated assault with the fists may constitute a crime under this section. In State v. Spradlin, 363 Mo. 940, 254 S.W.2d 660, 661, it was held that evidence of a 'deliberate and serious' assault on an elderly woman with the defendant's fists and hands was sufficient to constitute a crime under this section. The case of State v. Null, 355 Mo. 1034, 199 S.W.2d 639, where the information was considered insufficient under the 'malice' section, is probably distinguishable on the wording of the information, on the contentions of the State, and because our exact question was not ruled. In any event, we prefer to follow the later case. If evidence of a beating with the fists is sufficient to sustain such a charge (see Spradlin, supra), then we should not rule the information bad, pending the development of the evidence. Here the evidence has shown a most aggravated assault which was not only 'likely to,' but did actually cause 'great bodily harm.' We note also that the classification of weapons as 'deadly' may depend upon the effect produced by them, and the strength of the assailant. State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 204 S.W.2d 774. Judged by that standard, the fists of five or six assailants here were most certainly a 'means or force likely to produce * * * great bodily harm.' We do not mean to say that one who engages in an ordinary fistic encounter or assault with his fists may or should be prosecuted under this statute.

As to (2): The information states an intent 'to do great bodily harm,' rather than an intent to 'maim,' the latter being one of the alternative statutory words. In State v. Foster, 281 Mo. 618, 220 S.W. 958, loc. cit. 959, the...