State v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 13 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 45789,No. 1,45789,1 |
| Citation | 301 S.W.2d 813 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leslie (Jack) HENDERSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Charles Farrar, Theo. G. Scott, Buffalo, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Robert T. Donnelly, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from conviction of murder in the second degree and sentence of 25 years in the penitentiary. The only question raised is the sufficiency of the evidence to make a case for the jury.
It was admitted that defendant shot Louis Cline (hereinafter referred to as deceased) but it was claimed that the shooting was accidental. The following circumstances concerning the fatal shooting were shown by the State's evidence. Defendant and deceased had been acquainted for about five years, living near each other in Dallas County during that period, and they previously had worked together in the timber, cutting wood. Defendant was crippled and used a crutch. So far as known to their neighbors, including deceased's wife, they were good friends. However, they had not worked together for about three weeks prior to the shooting and deceased had been working in the timber with another neighbor, Lloyd Meyer, during that period. The State had the following evidence of statements made by defendant concerning deceased about a week before the shooting: This evidence was the testimony of a 14 year old boy who was working for Dorman, a neighbor of defendant and deceased, and he said the statements were made after he went on a trip to town with defendant and Dorman and after defendant had 'showed us where the wood was, and there wasn't no wood there.'
On the day of the killing, deceased went into the timber, near defendant's home, with his wife and Lloyd Meyer. They went in Meyer's truck and worked through the morning; and at noon Meyer's wife, Betty Meyer, came in Meyer's car with their three small children (one, three and five years old) and brought them dinner. They then all drove back into the timber as far as they could go on the rough trail (to a place where a tree had fallen across it), left the children in the car and began working about 100 yards from the trial. Meyer was operating a circular saw and the others were splitting and piling wood. About 3:30 P. M. defendant drove up to where Meyer's car was, turned his car around and headed it back out. Defendant's wife and baby (three weeks old) were with him. Defendant walked into the timber about half the distance between the road and the place where they were working and called, 'Lou, come here', at the same time making a motion with his head to indicate he wanted him to come to him. Deceased's wife said defendant's call sounded rough. Deceased laid down his axe and went toward defendant who then turned and walked toward the road. Deceased followed him and in a short time, estimated from three to five minutes by deceased's wife and Mr. and Mrs. Meyer, a gunshot was heard from the direction of the road. (They could not see the road from where they were working in the timber.) Deceased's wife said she had not heard any other sounds up on the road prior to the shot and that the next thing she heard was a car start. She then 'heard something like it had crashed into something'. She later saw defendant's car hung up on a rock 75 yards from Meyer's car and saw her husband crumpled up on the floor in the back of defendant's car. Meyer was running his tree saw when defendant called deceased so he did not hear what he said but saw him motion to deceased by throwing his head back. He stopped the saw and soon heard the shot and heard deceased scream. He then heard the car start from a dead engine and heard a crash on the road. Mrs. Meyer also heard the shot, the scream, the car starting and the crash.
Meyer went to his car and found his children crying and screaming. He then walked toward defendant's car which was 75 yards down the road, hung up on a large rock. Defendant called to him to bring his car and he went back and drove it to defendant's car. Meyer saw deceased slumped down on the floor of defendant's car between the front and rear seats. Meyer asked defendant what happened and he said 'I shot Lou.' (Defendant never told Meyer the shooting was accidental but he did hear him tell others that later in the afternoon but he did not hear any explanation of how it happened.) Defendant and Meyer took deceased out of defendant's car with the intention of putting him in Meyer's car and taking him to a doctor but he was too heavy (deceased was five feet two inches tall and weighed 210 lbs.), so Meyer went to call a doctor leaving him on the ground by defendant's car; he was dead when the doctor arrived. Defendant's car was a 1941 Chevrolet with two doors. It had a two piece windshield, with a strip up through the middle, and the right side of the windshield was broken out. Meyer did not see defendant's wife any place around there and defendant did not say anything about her being there. However, after he had a neighbor make a phone call for the doctor and was waiting at the highway for him, he saw defendant's wife come out of the timber with her baby. She had a scratch on one side of her head which was bleeding. She told him what had happened and went toward home. She did not testify at the trial.
The doctor arrived about fifteen minutes after Meyer had the call made; the sheriff and the coroner came soon afterwards. The sheriff and coroner determined from defendant's breath that he had been drinking but was not then intoxicated. Defendant told the coroner that he drank two bottles of beer. Defendant also told the coroner that deceased was on the front bumper of his car and the gun was lying across his lap. He said it was an accident but said he didn't know where the shot went out of the car. Defendant also told the sheriff that deceased was standing on the bumper of his car and the gun was laying on his lap. He said 'he hit a rock and the gun was discharged.' The sheriff said defendant once said the gun shot out through the windshield and 'then he said he wasn't for sure, it might have shot out the side of the door.' The sheriff found two blood stains on the side of defendant's car just behind the door on the driver's side; one was a two or three inch spot and the other was smaller. Deceased's would was made by a deer slug, a flat piece of lead, weighing about one ounce, in his left front chest near the center of the breast. The slug and three pieces of cotton wadding penetrated his breast. The sheriff found the empty deer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pickens, ED 93494.
...751 S.W.2d 389, 393 (Mo.App. E.D.1988); accord State v. Crabtree, 625 S.W.2d 670, 675–76 (Mo.App. E.D.1981); see also State v. Henderson, 301 S.W.2d 813, 816–17 (Mo.1957) (noting that “the presence or absence of motive is an evidentiary circumstance to be given such weight by the jury as th......
-
Buckles v. State, 4028
...clearly set out, particularly when as in this case the claim is of an accidental shooting. There appears in the case of State v. Henderson, Mo., 301 S.W.2d 813, 817, the '* * * Of course, the issue of motive is more important where the evidence is circumstantial and may well be determinativ......
-
State v. Sturdivan
...deliberate, and with malice aforethought; and neither motive nor a deadly weapon are elements of murder, first degree. State v. Henderson, 301 S.W.2d 813, 816 (Mo.1957); State v. Lamborn, 452 S.W.2d 216, 218 Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction; ......
-
Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc.
... ... Johnson, 320 S.W.2d 569, 574 (Mo.1959). Thus, non-user for a twenty-four year period does not constitute abandonment. Harrison v. State Highways and Transp. Com'n, 732 S.W.2d 214, 218 (Mo.App.1987). Further a non-user combined with failure to maintain and neglect of the roadway is ... ...