State v. Long
Decision Date | 05 March 1907 |
Citation | 201 Mo. 664,100 S.W. 587 |
Parties | STATE v. LONG. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Dave Long was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Pierce & Reeves, for appellant. The Attorney General and Frank Blake, for the State.
On October 3d, 1905, the prosecuting attorney of Pemiscot county filed an information, charging the defendant with murder in the first degree of one C. C. Still, on the 1st day of October, 1905. The defendant was duly arraigned on the 22d day of November, 1905, and a plea of not guilty entered. A trial was had on the 24th of November, 1905, and the jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree. The defendant was sentenced according to the verdict, and from that sentence has prosecuted his appeal in due form. The information, omitting caption, is in the following words:
The testimony tended to develop the following facts: The deceased, C. C. Still, and the defendant, Dave Long, lived on adjoining premises in the suburbs of a town named Steele in Pemiscot county, Mo., their houses being about 150 yards apart, and separated by a fence and a barn. On Sunday, October 1, 1905, at 6 o'clock in the morning, the deceased was out in his yard milking his cow, and the defendant was in his own yard. For some six months previous to this time, a bad state of feelings existed between these two, growing out of the fact that the defendant's pigs would wander over the premises of the deceased, and the defendant claimed that the deceased was constantly abusing and chunking them. Many threats were made by the defendant against the deceased. Ben Adams testified that about a week or two before the homicide the defendant was talking about the deceased killing his hogs and clubbing them, and said he had been aggravated enough about it, and he would rather shoot his (deceased) heart out than to eat chicken pie. Wesley Earp testified that along in May, 1905, he and the defendant were talking about some hay the deceased had thrown over in his cow lot, and defendant said, Witness said to him that that was wrong, and would get him into trouble, and he said he did not care if it did. On the other hand Winsett, a brother-in-law of the defendant, and the defendant's son, and the defendant himself testified to threats by the deceased. Winsett stated that early on the morning of the difficulty the defendant spoke to the deceased in a modest, low tone of voice, and told the deceased that it looked like he (the deceased) was determined that defendant should not raise any stock or pigs, and to this the deceased replied, "All right, I will blow your G____ d____ brains out before the sun goes down." The son testified that at the time of the killing of the deceased the defendant, who was walking out in the road with a shotgun, told deceased that he was ready to settle their difficulty, and deceased replied, "All right, I am going to blow your G____ d____ brains out," at the same time running his hand into his pocket, and continued to walk along.
The defendant testified in his own behalf, and stated that deceased bothered his (defendant's) hogs, and would beat them when they got into his yard. He told him to keep them out, The trouble over the stock continued, and was renewed about once a month. This was about a month before the killing. Deceased made an effort to fix the fence. Some six witnesses testified to the good reputation of the defendant for peace and quietude and for truth and veracity.
On the part of the state, Ira Wade testified the he was a young man about 21 years of age, and was living at the defendant's house at the time of the homicide, and saw the defendant kill the deceased with a shotgun on Sunday, October 1, 1905, between 10 and 11 o'clock that morning. At 6 o'clock that morning they had had trouble. Witness heard the defendant tell the deceased that anybody that would do a fellow's hogs that way would slip around and shoot him after night. They were in a racket after this racket. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Nasello
...and the answer defendant gave on cross-examination. State ex rel. Horton v. Clark, 9 S.W. (2d) 640; State v. Blocks, 278 S.W. 1015; State v. Long, 201 Mo. 664. (4) Instruction 2 given on behalf of the State is erroneous. (a) The first paragraph is erroneous in that it is a mere abstract pro......
-
State v. McGee
...proper questions in cross-examination of Judge McElroy effecting his credibility as a witness. State v. Davis, 225 S.W. 707; State v. Long, 201 Mo. 675, 100 S.W. 587; State v. Potts, 239 Mo. 413, 144 S.W. 495. (4) The court erred in reprimanding defendant's attorney in the presence of the j......
-
State v. Graves
...time deprive him of the right of self-defense. But the first paragraph is almost a counterpart of one approved in State v. Long, 201 Mo. 664, 675(IV), 100 S.W. 587, 590(4). That case holds such expressions need not be defined. In State v. Malone, 327 Mo. 1217, 1235, 39 S.W. (2d) 786, 793(9)......
-
Maurizi v. West. Coal & Mining Co.
...should not have permitted Matter. further examination into this collateral issue. [Muller v. St. Louis Hospital Assn., 73 Mo. 242; State v. Long, 201 Mo. 664, l.c. 674; State v. Potts, 239 Mo. 403, l.c. The examination continued, and the plaintiff was asked the following questions: "Q. Did ......