State v. Jones

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gantt
• Citation: State v. Jones, 171 Mo. 401, 71 S.W. 680 (Mo. 1903)
• Decision Date: 09 January 1903
• Parties: STATE v. JONES.

71 S.W. 680

171 Mo. 401

STATE v. JONES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 9, 1903.

CRIMINAL LAW—ARSON — INFORMATION — OCCUPANCY OF DWELLING — CHARACTER OF BUILDING—DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS—CONFESSIONS—OTHER OFFENSES.

1. An information charging that defendant willfully, etc., set fire to and burned a certain dwelling house of one T., in which said dwelling house there was then and there a human being, etc., sufficiently charged arson in the first degree, within Rev. St. 1899, § 1871, providing that every person who shall willfully set fire to or burn any dwelling house in which there shall be at the time some human being shall be guilty of arson in the first degree.

2. In a prosecution for burning a dwelling house in which a human being shall be at the time, prohibited by Rev. St. 1899, § 1871, it was not necessary that the name of the person in the house at the time the crime was committed should be set out in the information.

3. Where the upper portion of a building, for the burning of which defendant was convicted, was occupied as a dwelling house, the fact that the lower portion was devoted to business purposes did not affect its character as a dwelling house, within Rev. St. 1899, § 1871, providing that the burning of a dwelling house in which some human being shall be at the time shall constitute arson in the first degree.

4. Where an indictment charged arson of a dwelling house in which there was a human being at the time, and it was proved that one T. and his wife were sleeping in the building at the time, evidence that certain students were also in the building at the time was admissible.

5. Where a justice, constable, and sheriff, who were the only persons present when defendant confessed to an arson, all testified that no immunity was promised him, and the justice, on a preliminary hearing of another associated with defendant in the crime, advised defendant of his right not to testify to anything that would incriminate him, which he stated he understood and then proceeded to confess that he set the fire, defendant's testimony that such confession was obtained by inducements from another officer, who, however, did not have defendant in his custody, consisting of a promise of discharge and threats of mob violence, did not require the exclusion of the confession.

6. In a prosecution for arson of a particular house, a confession of the defendant that he burned another house on the same night and as a part of the same scheme was admissible, though it tended to prove another crime.

Appeal from circuit court, Miller county; James E. Hazell, Judge.

Louis C. Jones was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J. G. Slate, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

GANTT, J.

From a conviction of arson in Spring Garden, Miller county, Mo., on the night of January 7, 1901, the defendant prosecutes this appeal. The prosecution is by information filed by the prosecuting attorney. The defendant is not represented in this court, and consequently we have been compelled to read the entire record to ascertain what errors he relies on for reversal.

The information charges that "at the county of Miller, in this state, on the 7th day of January, A. D. 1901, the defendant, Louis C. Jones, unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and maliciously did set fire to and burn a certain dwelling house of one James P. Thompson, there situate, in which said dwelling house there was then and there a human being, against the peace and dignity of the state." The information charges arson in the first degree, as section 1871, Rev. St. 1899, provides that "every person who shall willfully set fire to or burn any dwelling house in which there shall be at the time some human being shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of arson in the first degree." It was not necessary to name in the information the person or persons who were in the house at the time the crime was committed. State v. Aguila, 14 Mo. 130; State v. Hayes, 78 Mo., loc. cit. 313.

The testimony established that the second or upstairs story of the dwelling house which defendant was charged with burning was occupied by James P. Thompson and wife as their dwelling, and also by some students, and a portion of the lower rooms by Dr. Devilbiss as a drug store, and was situated at the village of Spring Garden, in ...