State v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 11 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23823.,23823.
• Citation: 252 S.W. 623
• Parties: STATE v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

252 S.W. 623

STATE v. JOHNSON.

No. 23823.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 11, 1923.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Frank Landwehr, Judge.

Nathaniel Johnson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

S. E. Garner, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Harry C. Wilson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, J.

Appellant was indicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for murder in the first degree. Upon a trial he was found guilty as charged, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. From this judgment he appeals to this court.

An elderly negro woman living at 1515 Morgan street, in the city of St. Louis, was discovered on the morning of April 11, 1921, lying in a pool of blood in the front room of her house with her throat cut. Appellant, a negro railroad employee, had been living a few doors from the home of the deceased for about a month prior to the date of the discovery of her dead body. He had worked for the deceased on two occasions, and a few days before April 11th he told another negro, named Jackson, that the deceased had some nice diamonds and jewelry and he would like to have them.

Several were arrested in connection with the crime, among them appellant, who was released to appear before the coroner's jury. Subsequently he was rearrested, after the police had talked to Jackson. Appellant was taken to the police station in a patrol wagon with Jackson. On the way he told the latter to tell the police that he had been in East St. Louis all of the night before the body was found. Arriving at the police station, appellant was questioned by the police, and, on being informed of the statement he had made to Jackson, admitted that he had committed the crime the night before the woman's body was found, and that he had pawned her jewelry and had spent the money. `Upon being taken to his home he again admitted the commission of the crime. At the office of the chief of police, and afterwards at the office of the circuit attorney, he again admitted the commission of the crime and gave the details in connection with the same. Before making the confessions he was warned of the consequences thereof, and after he had made them in answer to questions by the circuit attorney he was told to think the matter over during the night, and that he would be brought back to sign or disaffirm them the next day. He was in the circuit attorney's office about an hour and a half, or, as he stated, "until nearly night." On the following day he was brought back to the circuit attorney's office, where he corrected some details of his confessions and signed the written statement of same in the presence of several witnesses. All of these witnesses testified that he seemed to be in good spirits, and manifested no evidence of having been subjected to violence at the hands of the police, and that at no time were threats or promises of immunity made to him to secure the confessions. He told the circuit attorney he wanted to get the matter off of his mind, and felt better after he had confessed.

It was shown that the appellant was at the home of his sister-in-law, where he resided, the day before the body was discovered; that he left there between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening, and on his return said something about leaving town that night; that he and another negro left the house together, and went to Thirteenth street, where appellant left his companion. Appellant's sister-in-law testified that he talked to her at a church a short distance from her home, where he lived, a few minutes before 8 o'clock that evening, and soon thereafter she went home, where she saw him in his nightclothes in bed about five minutes after 8 o'clock. The physician who attended the post mortem upon the body of the deceased testified that it showed no evidence of any other injury than the knife wound in the throat, which must have caused death in a few minutes after it was inflicted.

The appellant offered testimony to prove that he was at Henrietta Harper's house, where he lived, and in bed" about 8 o'clock on the night of April 11th, and that he stayed there all night. He denied the commission of the crime, and stated that he made the confession in the circuit attorney's office because he had been beaten by the police; that he signed the statement under the fear of again being beaten; that he did not know what he was signing; that he made no state., meat to Jackson about the deceased having some nice jewelry he would like to have; that he was suffering from the effects of the beating at the time he was in the circuit attorney's office from 2 to 3:30 p. m., when he made the last confession. He also offered testimony in an attempt to show that, if the deceased was murdered 14 hours before the discovery of the murder, the body would have been cold, and that the blood from the wound would have been coagulated, but, as the witnesses stated, these conditions would depend upon the temperature and moisture in the room in which the body was found.

I. The evidence to support this conviction rests upon the appellant's confessions and the proof of the corpus delicti. The facts in regard to the preliminary proof of the latter are so direct and convincing as to render a discussion of same unnecessary to establish their cogency. State v. Bowman (Mo. Sup.) 243 S. W. 110. The gaping wound, from its nature necessarily fatal, and the condition of the body of the deceased, from which it was evident the vital spark had but recently fled, furnished strong evidence of a death from violence. Add to this proof the confessions of the appellant, shown by disinterested witnesses to have been not only voluntarily but deliberately made, free from force, duress, promises of immunity, or artful persuasion, and such an array of facts are presented as afford, not only substantial, but convincing, proof of the appellant's guilt. We are not overlooking his repudiation on the witness Stand of his confessions, and his claim that they were extorted from him by cruelty and by putting him in fear. Not only by the oral testimony of others conversant with the facts, but by all of the physical conditions, was the truth of appellant's repudiation and of his charge of force shown to be groundless. The jury so determined, as they had a right to do (State v. Glazebrook [Mo. Sup.] 242 S. W. 028), and there is no fact which will authorize us in interfering with their finding. It is useless, therefore, to spend time in a discussion of the authorities...