State v. Gooch

Decision Date23 June 1891
Citation16 S.W. 892,105 Mo. 392
PartiesSTATE v. GOOCH.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

1. On a trial for assault with intent to kill, it appeared that one of defendants struck one B. with a club, and knocked him down; that thereupon another defendant jumped over a fence between the parties, and threw himself upon B., planting his knees upon his breast; and that the efforts of two men were required to pull him off, although B. was lying motionless on the ground. Defendant claimed he was holding B. to prevent him from drawing a pistol, but the state proved he had no weapon, made no movement to draw one, and was standing still with his back towards his assailant when knocked down. Held, the evidence sustained the conviction.

2. A charge that if any of defendants committed the felonious assault, and "any" of them were present aiding and abetting therein, is not objectionable, as warranting the conviction of one who may have been present, and did not commit the assault, or aid therein, when it is further stated that "then the person so doing or so present is equally guilty with the one making the assault."

3. An instruction that if one of the defendants made the felonious assault, and if the others were present aiding and abetting, or ready, if necessary, to aid and abet therein, they are equally guilty with him, is not erroneous, since the word "ready" means prepared in mind, and disposed to so aid and abet.

Appeal from circuit court, Linn county; G. D. BURGESS, Judge.

A. W. Mullins, for appellant. Atty. Gen. Wood, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The defendant and Nathan Gooch and Roland Gooch were indicted in the Linn county circuit court, at the June term thereof, for 1888, for a felonious assault upon S. P. Boyer with intent to kill him. At the December term of that court they were tried. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $1662/3; Nathan Gooch was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $200; and Roland Gooch, Sr., was acquitted. Defendant Alexander Gooch alone appeals. The bill of exceptions shows that the state offered evidence tending to prove that on the 2d day of June, 1888, at the county of Linn, in the state of Missouri, the defendant Nathan Gooch purposely and intentionally assaulted and struck one S. P. Boyer upon the side of the head with a large stick or club, and thereby inflicted upon him a severe and dangerous wound and injury, and that in so doing the said defendant Nathan Gooch was not acting in self-defense of his own person, and that the said S. P. Boyer was, at the time he was struck and injured, in the peace of the state, and not attempting to inflict violence upon any person; and that at the time said defendant Nathan Gooch assaulted and struck said S. P. Boyer the said defendant Alexander Gooch was present and near by, and that, after said Boyer was struck and knocked down by said Nathan Gooch by such blow, the defendant Alexander Gooch came up to said Boyer while he was down, and seized hold of him, and assaulted and used violence upon him; and that the evidence offered on the part of the defense tended to show that the said defendant Alexander Gooch came up to said S. P. Boyer, after he was struck by said Nathan Gooch, and while said Boyer was partly down, and took hold of him, said Boyer, but that he, said defendant Alexander Gooch, did not use, or attempt to use, any violence upon said Boyer, and that he took hold of said Boyer for the purpose only of preventing him from drawing or using any weapon; and that said defendant Alexander Gooch tried to prevent violence, and to restore peace, at said difficulty. And with respect to said defendant Nathan Gooch the evidence offered on his behalf tended to show that he struck said S. P. Boyer one blow or lick with a stick or the end of a broken fence-stake, somewhat decayed, and that by such blow said Boyer was felled to the ground; but at the time said defendant Nathan Gooch so struck the said Boyer the said Nathan Gooch believed, and had good reason to believe, that the said Boyer was in the act of drawing a knife from his pocket, which was a dangerous or deadly weapon, for the purpose and with the intention of using the same upon the person of Roland Gooch, Jr., who is the brother of said defendant Nathan Gooch, and who was present, and only a few feet from said Boyer, at the time; and that said Nathan Gooch struck the said S. P. Boyer such blow for the purpose of protecting and defending his brother, the said Roland Gooch, Jr., from injury by said Boyer. The state offered evidence tending to show that S. P. Boyer did not have a knife or weapon of any kind on or about his person at the time he was knocked down by Nathan with a club; that he did not make any movement for such purpose; that ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Espy v. State, 2079
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 11 Julio 1939
    ...... what they did, a previous understanding was not necessary to. be shown to render each accountable for the other's acts. Wyo. R. S. 1931, § 32-1101; Berry v. State, 51. Wyo. 249, 258-262, 65 P.2d 1097; Radke v. State, 17. Okla. Crim. 230, 187 P. 500; State v. Gooch, 105 Mo. 392, 16 S.W. 892; 29 C. J. 1067; note, 12 A. L. R. 275. . . There. was also objection and exception to the giving of instruction. No. 21, as follows:. . . "If. the person assailed is without fault and in a place where he. has a right to be and is put in ......
  • Eagan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kansas
    • 6 Marzo 1939
    ...40 Ann. Cas. 268; Nat. L. and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 86 S.W.2d 139; American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Garrison (Tex.), 9 S.W.2d 534; State v. Gooch, 105 Mo. 392. (7) verdict and judgment is against the evidence and the weight of the evidence. Hester v. Fid. & Cas. Co., 69 Mo.App. 186; Banton v. Ca......
  • State v. Altwatter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 9 Mayo 1916
    ......398, 60. P. 101; Reeves v. Territory, 10 Okla. 194, 61 P. 828.) "All who participate in a criminal enterprise are. equally guilty of the crime committed by one of their number,. in which the others, being present, either participate or are. ready to assist." (People v. Gooch, 105 Mo. 392, 16 S.W. 892; State v. Nelson, 98 Mo. 414, 11. S.W. 997; People v. Cotta, 49 Cal. 166, 643;. State v. Murray, 126 Mo. 526, 29 S.W. 590;. Sankey v. State, 128 Ala. 51, 29 So. 578; People v. Moran, 144 Cal. 48, 77 P. 777.). . . J. H. Peterson, D. A. Dunning and Herbert ......
  • State v. Greer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 18 Diciembre 1928
    ......Hayden, 141 Mo. 311. (3) In the absence of. an agreement and in the absence of conclusive testimony that. defendant Greer aided and abetted codefendant Downs in an. assault to commit a rape, even assuming such an assault was. committed, defendant Greer would not be guilty. State v. Gooch, 105 Mo. 392; State v. Burlison, 285 S.W. 712; State v. Orrick, 106 Mo. 120. (4) It is. improper argument on behalf of the State's attorneys to. allude directly or indirectly upon the failure of the. defendant or codefendant to testify in a criminal case. State v. Watson, 1 S.W.2d 837; Sec. ......
  • 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