State v. Hudson
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | WAGNER |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 135 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAM E. HUDSON, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1875 |
59 Mo. 135
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
v.
WILLIAM E. HUDSON, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
February Term, 1875.
Appeal from Holt Circuit Court.
Thomas H. Parrish, with Bennett & Vinton, Pike, for Appellant.
I. Instruction 10 is without precedent. It assumes that the evidence proves the defendant guilty of murder, requiring the jury to find the degree only. (State vs. Smith, 53 Mo., 267; State vs. Hundley, 46 Mo., 415, 421-2; Schneer vs. Lemp, 17 Mo., 142; Fine vs. St. L. P. S. 30 Mo., 166; State vs. Cushing, 29 Mo., 215; Scroggin vs. Wilson, 13 Mo., 80; Labeaume vs. Dodier, 1 Mo. 618; Glasgow vs. Copeland, 8 Mo., 268; State vs. Packwood, 26 Mo., 363; Chappell vs. Allen, 38 Mo., 213; State vs. Ostrander, 30 Mo., 12.)
James Limbird, Pros. Atty. Holt Co., for Respondent, relied upon State vs. Schoenwald, 31 Mo., 147; State vs. Starr, 38 Mo., 270.
WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree in killing one William Dougherty, and his trial resulted in
[59 Mo. 136]
conviction for murder in the second degree and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary.
The evidence is brief and there is no conflict in it. It seems that a man by the name of Scott and the deceased were sitting upon a fence, and the defendant came out of a saloon and approached them. Scott then had some words with the defendant and told him that he was going to make a son of the deceased whip him when he got well. At this the defendant declared that “none of the d____d set” could do it. That he could whip any of them. The deceased then got off from the fence and told the defendant that he must not say that for he could not whip him.
Defendant then went down the sidewalk a short distance and had his knife opened and came back with it in his right hand, either in his pocket or holding it behind him. He then told the deceased that he had nothing against him, but if he wanted “to take it up to pitch in,” or words to that effect, and threw out his left hand towards the face of the deceased. The deceased then gave him a blow that staggered him, and followed it with another that knocked him to his knees. He then raised himself and stabbed deceased in the heart, from the effects of which wound deceased expired in two or three minutes. There was also evidence of express malice and that the act was committed to gratify a previous grudge.
This was the evidence sworn to by many witnesses who witnessed the whole difficulty.
The defendant introduced no evidence on his part.
The court of its own instance gave ten instructions, all of which were objected to by defendant.
The first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Short, 17,031
...620, 22 S.W. 371; Rogers v. State, 95 Tenn. 448, 453, 33 S.W. 563; Johnson v. State, 26 Tex.App. 631, 641, 10 S.W. 235; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135, 138. "And it was held that one who stopped at the show of the deceased in order to quarrel with him provoked the difficulty, as he was not act......
-
State v. Creighton, No. 31435.
...formed intention to kill, the element of deliberation was wanting, and the offense was not murder in the first degree. State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135; State v. Jackel, 44 Mo. 234; State v. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234; State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540, 106 S.W. 505, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 836. In the case of th......
-
State v. Anderson
...Linney, 52 Mo. 40; State v. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 153; State v. Christian et al., 66 Mo. 138, 145; State v. Brown, 63 Mo. 443; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135, 138; State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 69, 79. The only real difference between the seventh instruction given for the state and what is here called th......
-
State v. Fairlamb
...in an attempt to commit a felony, it was murder in the second degree, unless justifiable. State v. Foster, 61 Mo. 549; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135. "To constitute murder in the second degree, the elements of willfulness, premeditation, and malice aforethought must exist together in the act.......
-
State v. Short, 17,031
...620, 22 S.W. 371; Rogers v. State, 95 Tenn. 448, 453, 33 S.W. 563; Johnson v. State, 26 Tex.App. 631, 641, 10 S.W. 235; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135, 138. "And it was held that one who stopped at the show of the deceased in order to quarrel with him provoked the difficulty, as he was not act......
-
State v. Creighton, No. 31435.
...formed intention to kill, the element of deliberation was wanting, and the offense was not murder in the first degree. State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135; State v. Jackel, 44 Mo. 234; State v. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234; State v. Speyer, 207 Mo. 540, 106 S.W. 505, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 836. In the case of th......
-
State v. Anderson
...Linney, 52 Mo. 40; State v. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 153; State v. Christian et al., 66 Mo. 138, 145; State v. Brown, 63 Mo. 443; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135, 138; State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 69, 79. The only real difference between the seventh instruction given for the state and what is here called th......
-
State v. Fairlamb
...in an attempt to commit a felony, it was murder in the second degree, unless justifiable. State v. Foster, 61 Mo. 549; State v. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135. "To constitute murder in the second degree, the elements of willfulness, premeditation, and malice aforethought must exist together in the act.......