State v. Hicks
| Decision Date | 31 January 1859 |
| Parties | THE STATE, Respondent, v. HICKS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. To constitute murder in the first degree, the act of killing must be intentional, and done without justifiable cause.
2. Where a homicide is committed under circumstances that leave it in doubt whether the act was committed maliciously or from an apprehension of real danger, the jury may consider the fact that the deceased was of a rash, turbulent and violent disposition in determining whether the accused had reasonable cause to apprehend great personal injury to himself.
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court.
Perryman and Carter, for appellant.
Ewing (attorney-general), for the State.
I. The law of the case was fairly presented to the jury. (State v. Hays, 23 Mo. 318.) The fifth, sixth and seventh instructions asked by the defendant were not the law; they were not warranted by the evidence. The temper and disposition of the deceased were not involved in the prosecution. The defendant was not prejudiced by the instructions. (7 Mo. 416; 8 Mo. 224; 3 Grah. & Wat. on New Trials, 717.)
The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. On the trial, the court gave several instructions, among which is the following: “The court further instructs the jury that malice in its legal sense denotes a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse; and it is not necessary, in order to support an indictment for murder in the first degree, to show that the act of killing was intentional, and done without any justifiable cause.”
This instruction is so palpably wrong, that it requires no comment to expose it. To constitute murder in the first degree, the homicide must be willful, deliberate and premeditated; and these terms, which define the quality of the offense, necessarily involve the element of a prior intention to do the act in question. An act unintended cannot be said to be willful; and though the natural consequences of an act deliberately done or presumed to have been intended, and premeditation may be inferred from the conduct of the accused, yet, in the absence of a felonious intent, there can be no murder.
In a capital case, in which it is sought to deprive a man of his life, he has at least the right to demand that it shall be taken away according to law; and though it may be fairly argued that the instruction did not mislead the jury, and had no agency in producing the verdict, we cannot, in a case of this magnitude, enter into a calculation of the chances as to whether or not the defendant was prejudiced by it.
The first instruction asked by the defendant, and given, properly stated the law, and the fifth and sixth were rightly refused, because they omitted the necessary qualification that there was reasonable cause on the part of the defendant to apprehend immediate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Zorn
...to determine whether defendant had reasonable cause to apprehend great personal injury to himself. [State v. Bryant, 55 Mo. 75; State v. Hicks, 27 Mo. 588; State Forsha, 190 Mo. 296, 317, 88 S.W. 746; State v. Elkins, 63 Mo. 159.] It is apparent from the record in this cause that the defens......
-
State v. Parker
... ... deceased, the defendant was still entitled to have the jury ... instructed to consider this circumstance in determining if ... the defendant had reasonable cause for apprehension of injury ... to himself, when the deceased attacked him. State v ... Hicks, 27 Mo. 588; State v. Barrett, 144 S.W ... 485. (5) The details of former difficulties between the ... defendant and the deceased, and collateral matters having no ... connection with the offense charged, are inadmissible. The ... State was only entitled to show that there was ill feeling ... ...
-
State v. Feeley
...as to whether the defendant has the right to show such reputation under any circumstances, the authorities are much in conflict. In State v. Hicks, 27 Mo. 588, the rule that defendant must at the time of the killing, have knowledge of the reputation of deceased for being a quarrelsome and d......
-
The State v. Colvin
...high-tempered, abusive and turbulent. The competency of such testimony has been established by a long line of cases in this State. State v. Hicks, 27 Mo. 588; v. Keene, 50 Mo. 357; State v. Bryant, 55 Mo. 75; State v. Feeley, 194 Mo. 300. (6) The court erred in giving instructions on the su......