State v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 24 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | 32672 |
| Citation | 61 S.W.2d 960,333 Mo. 168 |
| Parties | The State v. William L. Goodwin, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dunklin Circuit Court; Hon. W. S. C. Walker Judge.
Affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, John W. Hoffman Jr., and Wm. Orr Sawyers, Assistant Attorney-Generals, for respondent.
(1) The information in this case properly follows the language of the statute and is in a form which has been approved by the court. Sec. 3982, R. S. 1929; State v. Faxon, 229 S.W. 885; State v. Privitt, 175 Mo. 225, 75 S.W 457; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 36; State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 570; State v. Wilson, 172 Mo. 420. (2) The verdict is in proper form and is responsive to the issue. R. S. 1929, sec. 3701; State v. Long, 253 S.W. 729; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107, 12 S.W. 516. (3) Points 2, 3 and 4 raised in the motion for new trial are not sufficiently specific to raise the point on appeal. Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Caviness, 33 S.W.2d 943; State v. Kuebler, 14 S.W.2d 449; State v. Bailey, 8 S.W.2d 57, 320 Mo. 271; State v. Preslar, 300 S.W. 687, 318 Mo. 679; State v. Standifer, 289 S.W. 856, 316 Mo. 49; State v. Bowman, 12 S.W.2d 51. (4) There is substantial evidence to support the verdict. State v. McMullin, 170 Mo. 608; State v. Green, 229 Mo. 656, 129 S.W. 700; State v. Moore, 235 S.W. 1056.
An information was filed in the Circuit Court of Dunklin County, Missouri, on the eighth day of June, 1931, charging the appellant with the crime of murder in the first degree. On July 16, 1931, the appellant waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. On the same day a jury was empaneled, heard the evidence and on Friday, July 17, 1931, returned a verdict finding the appellant guilty as charged in the information and assessing his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. The appellant duly filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled; judgment was rendered and sentence pronounced in conformity with the verdict of the jury. The appellant has duly appealed to this court; he has filed no briefs in this court and we, therefore, look to the assignment of errors in appellant's motion for a new trial. There were five assignments of error in appellant's motion for a new trial. The first four are as follows:
I. With the exception of the following clause in the first assignment of error that "there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict" (State v. Miller, 318 Mo. 581, 300 S.W. 765), the first four assignments are too general to comply with Section 3735, Revised Statutes 1929, and cannot be considered. [State v. Bailey, 8 S.W.2d 57, 320 Mo. 271; State v. Bowman (Mo.), 12 S.W.2d 51; State v. Francis, 330 Mo. 1205, 52 S.W.2d 552.]
II. We believe there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. The appellant admitted that he killed the deceased, but claimed that the killing was justified on the grounds of self-defense. However, the evidence on behalf of the State tended to show that the deceased was at Mike Murray's cabin on the St. Francis River in Dunklin County owned by Clayton Murray. About three o'clock on the day that the deceased was killed, the appellant came over to this cabin and on the front porch he met the deceased. A conversation ensued in which the deceased asked the appellant, "Are you just now making it in, Bill?" To which question the appellant replied, "Yes, and I have come to kill you." The appellant then pulled his gun and the deceased ran back into the house, at which time the appellant fired two shots at the deceased and a few moments later fired a third shot. The three shots penetrated the body of the deceased. There was testimony on behalf of the State to the effect that the deceased did not in any way attempt to strike or interfere with the appellant nor were there any deadly weapons in the possession of the deceased at the time that he was shot. There is testimony to the effect that after the third shot the deceased and the appellant clinched on the front porch and both fell into the water. The appellant then asked those present to help him get deceased out of the water. One of the men present did so.
We believe that this is substantial evidence to support the verdict. It is admitted by the appellant that he intentionally killed the deceased. It was, therefore, not necessary to show motive. [State v. Dodson (Mo.), 29 S.W.2d 60.] There is substantial evidence to show that the killing was in cold blood and, therefore, deliberate; it was thought of beforehand and, therefore, premeditated. This is sufficient evidence for the jury to find the appellant guilty of first degree murder. [State v. Cade, 326 Mo. 1132, 34 S.W.2d 82.] In the case of State v. Caviness, 326 Mo. 992, 33 S.W.2d 940, l. c. 943, we approved the case of State v. Fields, 262 Mo. 158, 170 S.W. 1132, wherein the court said:
"The rule . . . is that before this court will relieve on the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence, there must be either a total failure of evidence, or it must be so weak that the necessary inference is that the verdict is the result of passion, prejudice or partiality."
There is sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict and this assignment of error is overruled.
III. The fifth and last assignment of error is that the information is defective. First. The appellant contends that the information "wholly fails to charge the defendant with the crime that he is being tried for, said information wholly fails to inform the defendant of the crime as by law required." The information follows the well-settled precedent of this State in charging murder in the first degree; it follows Section 3982, Revised Statutes 1929, which defines murder in the first degree. A further examination of the information will disclose that the information specifically charges the defendant "feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of his malice aforethought did kill and murder," which is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGee
......Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Francis, 52 S.W.2d 552;. State v. Thompson, 29 S.W.2d 67; State v. Fisher, 46 S.W.2d 55; State v. Aguelera, 33. S.W.2d 901; State v. Moore, 36 S.W.2d 928; State. v. Wampler, 58 S.W.2d 26; State v. Goodwin, 61. S.W.2d 960; State v. Shawley, 67 S.W.2d 74;. State v. Smith, 68 S.W.2d 696; State v. Copeland, 71 S.W.2d 746. (19) The court did not err in. refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that there was a. variance between the information and proof. State v. Fike, 24 S.W.2d 1027; ......
-
State v. Barbata
...... and 16 raised in motion for new trial are not sufficiently. specific to raise the points on appeal. Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Early, 49 S.W.2d 1060; State v. Francis, 52 S.W.2d 552; State v. Vigus, 66. S.W.2d 854; State v. Maness, 19 S.W.2d 629;. State v. Goodwin. 61 S.W.2d 960. (4) The court did. not err in giving to the jury the Instruction 1. State v. Jackson, 167 Mo. 296; State v. Tettaton, 159. Mo. 379; State v. Bobbst, 269 Mo. 225; State v. Hershon, 329 Mo. 495; State v. Adams, 323 Mo. 741. (5) Instructions 3 and 4 given by the court ......
-
State v. January
...... is that the matter mentioned did not mislead defendant. . . Defendant's. assertion in his motion for new trial that instructions. specified only by number were erroneous, without more, is. insufficient to preserve any issue with respect thereto. State v. Goodwin, 333 Mo. 168, 169[1], 61 S.W. 2d. 960[1]; State v. Rosegrant, 338 Mo. 1153, 1174[9],. 93 S.W. 2d 961, 973[20]. The instructions appear fair enough. in the respects mentioned in defendant's printed brief. when they are read in the light of the evidence and as a. whole. . . ......
-
State v. Johnson
....... ." because said. remark of counsel evidences his own personal opinion and is. not based upon the evidence and therefore was highly improper. and prejudicial. State v. Hess, 144 S.W. 489, 240. Mo. 147; State v. Reppley, 213 S.W. 477, 278 Mo. 333; State v. Goodwin, 217 S.W. 264. (17) The court. erred in permitting counsel for the State in closing. argument, over the objection of the appellant, to refer to. the fact that appellant had not testified as to certain facts. while he was on the witness stand. State v. Fairlamb, 25 S.W. 895, 121 Mo. 137; ......