State v. Graham
| Decision Date | 31 October 1870 |
| Citation | 46 Mo. 490 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN GRAHAM, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Second District Court.
Geo. D. Reynolds and H. B. Johnson, for plaintiff in error, cited 1 Whart. Crim. Law, § 699; State v. Jackson, 17 Mo. 544; Green v. State, 13 Mo. 382.Reppy, Thomas & Williams, for defendant in error, cited State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; 37 Mo. 225.
The only question necessary to notice springs out of the action of the Circuit Court in excluding the evidence offered by the defendant. The defendant was indicted under the statute (Wagn. Stat. 462, § 55) for willfully and maliciously killing a hog, the property of one Huskey. After the evidence for the State was submitted, the prisoner introduced Samuel Herrington, his father-in-law, and offered to prove by him that on the morning of the day on which the prisoner shot the hog, he (Herrington) requested defendant to go into the woods where he had some wild hogs running and kill them; that defendant went out with his gun and shot the hog, and after shooting it he returned to witness' house and stated that he had killed Huskey's hog, and asked what to do with it; that witness sent his son and defendant with a wagon, with instructions to take the hog to Huskey and give it to him. This evidence was ruled by the court to be inadmissible. The defendant was then convicted and sentenced to pay a fine.
It is an admitted principle that after the commission of a crime the guilty party can not, by his own acts and declarations, make evidence in his favor. But in the present case, after the killing was proven, it was necessary and material to show with what intent the act was done. Evidence on the part of the accused, showing the animus and intention, was competent in establishing his innocence. The testimony which he offered to produce, showing that he was authorized and requested to kill Herrington's hogs running in the woods, was proper, and should have been admitted. It was important for him to show how he became engaged in killing hogs in that place and at that time. If he was simply pursuing his authority and killing what he supposed to be Herrington's hogs, it is obvious that he was guilty of no offense. And whether such were the facts, was a question to be passed upon by the jury. On a consideration of the whole evidence, we are unable to distinguish this case from The State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gadwood
... ... Wilcox, 179 S.W. 479. (c) A prior declaration of a ... person's intention is competent evidence, where, as here, ... the question of his intent is in issue. State v ... Young, 119 Mo. 495, 24 S.W. 1038; State v ... Brandau, 76 Mo.App. 305; State v. Graham, 46 ... Mo. 490; State v. Matthews, 20 Mo. 55; Koonse v ... Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 322 Mo. 813, 18 S.W.2d 467. (d) ... Defendant had the right to introduce evidence tending to ... explain his flight from the scene of the homicide. State ... v. Mallon, 75 Mo. 355; State v. Barham, 82 Mo ... ...
-
State v. Churchill
...necessary to prevent or avert such injury. (State v. Robinson, 3 Dev. & B. 130, 32 Am. Dec. 669, note; Wright v. State, supra; State v. Graham, 46 Mo. 490; Bishop Statutory Crimes, secs. 436, 437.) Dogs chasing animals can be killed. (Anderson v. Smith, 7 Ill.App. 354; Barrett v. Utley, 12 ......
-
The State v. Young
... ... If this was his purpose, certainly it would be evidence ... tending to counteract the suspicion that might arise from the ... suggestion of a secret visit and no lawful purpose disclosed ... We think the court erred in excluding the evidence. State ... v. Graham , 46 Mo. 490; State v. Gabriel , 88 Mo ... Moreover ... it was competent as a part of the res gestoe ... He did ... go from Quincy to his father's and did get his clothing ... When such statements are the natural and inartificial ... concomitants of an act and explain it, ... ...
-
State v. Punshon
... ... anything, therefore, tending to prove either contention, or ... that was calculated to throw any light on the manner of her ... death, was competent evidence. State v. Moxley, 102 ... Mo. 382; State v. Leutz, 45 Minn. 177; Stewart ... v. State, 19 Ohio 302; State v. Graham, 46 Mo ... 490; State v. Sloan, 47 Mo. 604; State v ... McNally, 87 Mo. 644; State v. Kennedy, 121 Mo ... 405; 1 Stark, Ev. [6 Ed.] 64. (4) The court erred in refusing ... to permit defendant to prove the disordered state of ... deceased's mind at, and prior to, the time of her death, ... ...