State v. Lewis
| Decision Date | 21 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 36884.,36884. |
| Citation | 137 S.W.2d 465 |
| Parties | STATE v. LEWIS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; Frank Kelly, Judge.
Luther Lewis, alias "Baby Red," was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and W. J. Burke, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
Luther Lewis was convicted in the circuit court of Mississippi county, Missouri, of murder in the second degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years. He appealed.
The record discloses the following: Luther Lewis was operating a tavern in Charleston, Missouri, in a neighborhood referred to in the evidence as "Bad Lands". On October 30, 1938, a number of negroes were in the tavern dancing when a fight took place in which knives seemed to have been used, as a number of people received cuts. The deceased, George Redditt, and another negro, referred to as a "tall man", left the place and went out on the street, where the tall negro took off his shirt to see how badly he had been cut. About this time appellant and Vernon Brooks a constable, appeared on the scene and appellant asked the constable to arrest the tall man, which the constable did. About the time the constable was leaving with his prisoner, George Redditt said: "What have you got to do with it?" Whereupon appellant replied: "I have" or "he has plenty to do with it." Appellant then struck Redditt and knocked him toward a building. Immediately thereafter and before Redditt had straightened himself appellant shot him with a revolver and he died within a few minutes. An examination disclosed that the bullet entered the left side of deceased's body about the top of the belt and came out just below the chest on the right side. The bullet was found on the inside pocket of his coat. A number of the state's witnesses testified that appellant struck deceased and while deceased was in a stooping position shot him. These witnesses also testified that deceased did not have a knife or other weapon. Appellant's plea was self-defense. He testified that as the constable was leaving with his prisoner Redditt said: "What in the hell have you got to do with it?" and started toward the constable; that he, appellant, then struck Redditt, whereupon Redditt started toward him with a knife; that he then, to protect himself, shot Redditt. The state's evidence was ample to sustain the verdict.
Appellant's assignments of error, in his motion for a new trial, preserved two points for our review. The trial court permitted the state, over appellant's objection, to introduce in evidence the clothing worn by the deceased at the time of the homicide. This was assigned as error because the clothing was covered with blood. By stipulation the clothing is here for our inspection. We do not find much blood on this clothing, but, be that as it may, appellant's plea was self-defense and he testified that the deceased was threatening him with a knife at the time the fatal shot was fired. The state's witnesses testified that deceased was shot while in a stooping position and before he was able to straighten himself after appellant had struck him. The clothing was mute evidence corroborating the evidence of the state's witnesses that deceased was shot while in a stooping position. The trial court did not err in its ruling. State v. Shawley, 334 Mo. 352, 67...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chism v. Cowan
... ... Cowan).' He heard plaintiff say he gave up, his repeated pleas not to shoot him, and heard defendant state his intention to kill plaintiff. 'He (defendant) kept repeating that he caught us and he was going to kill us, he was going to teach us not to fish ... State v. Davis, Mo., 267 S.W. 838, 840(3); State v. Lewis, Mo., 137 S.W.2d 465, 466(2); Keen v. St. Louis I.M. & S.R. Co., 129 Mo.App. 301, 108 S.W. 1125, 1126(3); State v. Tarwater, 293 Mo. 273, 239 S.W ... ...
-
State v. Whipkey
... ... R.S.1949, Sec. 546.070(3); State v. Hobson, Mo.Sup., 177 S.W. 374, 376; State v. Baker, 262 Mo ... 689, 172 S.W. 350, 354; State v. Weiss, Mo.Sup., 219 S.W. 368, 373; State v. Martin, Mo.Sup., 56 S.W.2d 137, 140; State v. Lewis, Mo.Sup., 137 S.W.2d 465, 467. Appellant may not successfully urge reversible error on this issue ... Many complaints are lodged against the argument for the State ... Counsel informed the jury that in serious cases of this nature the law did not permit them to ... ...
-
State v. Ousley
... ... See Sawyer, 365 S.W.2d 487; State v. Lewis, 137 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Mo.1940) (“Where a court admits evidence in rebuttal and then gives the defendant full opportunity to explain or rebut such evidence, no rights of the defendant are violated.”). The State argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ... ...
-
State v. Hunter, 53113
... ... State v. Washington, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 518, 524; State v. Smith, Mo., 261 S.W.2d 50, 55; State v. Lewis, Mo., 137 S.W.2d 465, 466 ... For the reasons indicated the judgment is affirmed ... STOCKARD, C., concurs in result ... PRITCHARD, C., concurs ... PER CURIAM: ... The foregoing opinion by BARRETT, C., is adopted as ... ...