State v. Jones
| Citation | 79 Mo. 441 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JONES, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1883 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Walter F. McEntire for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant was indicted in the St. Louis criminal court at its July term, 1881, for murder in the first degree for killing Antoine Valle on the 15th day of July, 1881. At the November term, 1881, of said court, he was put upon his trial which resulted in his conviction. From this judgment he appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for another trial. He was re-tried in the criminal court at its January term, 1883, which again resulted in his conviction for murder in the first degree and he was sentenced to be hanged. From this judgment defendant appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment was affirmed, and from this judgment of affirmance he has appealed to this court.
The counsel assigned to the defense of the accused has shown commendable zeal in conducting it, and seeks a reversal of the judgment on the alleged erroneous action of the trial court in not giving an instruction for manslaughter in the fourth degree, and also in giving the following: “In this case the defendant contends that he is not guilty of any offense, because, what he did he acted in self-defense, and that the shooting of Antoine Valle by the defendant was necessary to prevent the inflicting upon him, the defendant, of great bodily harm by Antoine Valle.”
In order that these objections may be disposed of intelligibly, it will be necessary to state the substance of the evidence. It appears that some days previous to the homicide deceased and defendant, who were working as boat-hands on the Lady Lee, a steamboat plying between the city of St. Louis and Kansas City, had a difficulty on board the boat about twenty-five miles below the latter place, and that deceased struck defendant with a piece of cord-wood, cutting his ear and knocking him down; that defendant then left the boat and returned to the city of St. Louis by rail, arriving there on Tuesday; that the Lady Lee returned to St. Louis on the following Friday; that defendant soon after the arrival of the boat went aboard and shot the deceased under the following circumstances, as detailed by Daniel Follio, ship-carpenter:
“About the middle of July, 1881, I was working on the steamboat Fannie Lewis. She was lying at the Missouri wharf-boat. The Lady Lee came in and landed on the outside of us. Was working on the starboard guard on the staging. Didn't know Antoine Valle; didn't know Emmett Jones, the defendant; saw Jones after he got aft of the boilers on the deck-room of the Lady Lee. He walked aft to the hammock that the man was sleeping in. I saw him walk back from the boilers to the hammock, step up on some boards that were lying there, put his hand in the hammock to see who was in there, look into the hammock, then step back, cocked his pistol, stepped upon the boards again and shot him. The man raised a little ways, groaned once; as he fell back he shot him again. He got down and walked aft. He (Jones) had a rag or handkerchief tied around his head. He walked aft the boat, and that is the last I saw of him. He had to walk twenty or twenty-five feet from where I first saw him, to get to the hammock. The lumber was lying near the hammock in piles about eighteen inches high. To reach the hammock he got up on the lumber. He remained just long enough to look in. The deceased didn't say anything. The hammock was swung on car lines, about eight feet high. It swung about seven feet from the deck. I didn't see the man in the hammock until he raised his head and shoulders. I should judge he raised up from eight to ten inches. This was after the first shot was fired. He groaned once and fell back. Didn't see the man move in the hammock until the first shot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goodwin v. Swenson, 1079.
...told me I was going to have to try the case and he didn't want any excuses. * * * This left me with not too good a feeling." 9 State v. Jones, 79 Mo. 441 (1883), shows what eventually happened to defendant Emmett Jones. After the reversal of his first conviction he was retried, convicted, a......
-
State v. Anderson
...self-defence. State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 547; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207; State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 121; State v. Snell, 78 Mo. 240; State v. Jones, 79 Mo. 441. Courts, in the trial of defendants charged with murder, should not instruct as to manslaughter, unless there is evidence to support s......
-
State v. Wilson
...... something that had been in deceased's hand fell to the. ground; that thereafter he pulled his gun and shot. Manslaughter in the fourth degree has been defined, under the. above statute, by our courts. 21 Cyc. 736, 737; State v. O'Hara, 92 Mo. 59; State v. Jones, 79 Mo. 441; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207; State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 143; State v. Gassert, 4 Mo.App. 44; State v. Sharp, 233 Mo. 269; State v. McKenzie, 228 Mo. 385; State v. Sebastian, 215. Mo. 58; State v. Darling, 199 Mo. 168; State v. Todd, 194 Mo. 377; State v. Weakly, 178 ......
-
State v. Anderson
...... to selfdefence has, under a similar state of facts, uniformly. been approved by this court. State v. Starr, 38 Mo. 270; State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 40; State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 50; State v. Eaton, 75 Mo. 586; State v. Thomas, 78 Mo. 339, 340; State v. Jones, 78 Mo. 285. The eighth instruction in regard to. statements made by defendants since the fatal shooting is. correct. State v. Carlisle, 57 Mo. 102; State v. Hill, 65 Mo. 84; State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 71. The ninth instruction in regard to the statements or. admissions of one defendant ......