State v. Lyles

• Decision Date: 06 December 1943
• Docket Number: 38534
• Citation: 175 S.W.2d 587,351 Mo. 1174
• Parties: State v. Leo Lyles, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

175 S.W.2d 587

351 Mo. 1174

State v. Leo Lyles, Appellant

No. 38534

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 6, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County; Hon. John J Wolfe, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

I Joel Wilson for appellant.

(1) The court erred prejudicially to defendant in reopening the case and permitting the State over objection of defendant to introduce evidence tending to show the sanity of the defendant, inasmuch as such evidence was wholly irrelevant incompetent, immaterial and improper because the defendant entered no plea of insanity as a defense in said cause, nor did he offer, introduce or present any testimony of any witness upon such plea, and such evidence was not in rebuttal of any testimony of any witness who testified in the case. State v. Corrington, 116 S.W.2d l. c. 88; State v. Barker, 115 S.W. l. c. 1105; State v. Mary, 5 Mo. l. c. 80; State v. Forsha, 190 Mo. l. c. 327. (2) The court erred in permitting witnesses Joseph McGuire, William Grupp, Jr., James Andrews, Alois G. Ruesch, Walter Naschmidt, Rufus Hopkins, Dr. Walker Turner, Dr. Waldo Forsiman, Dr. Francis M. Barnes and Dr. James F. McFadden, to testify, after the court had erroneously opened the case over the objection of the defendant, to facts, incidents and occurrences, and to the perpetration of separate, distinct and independent offenses characterized by violence on the part of the defendant having no connection with the offense charged, all occurring several months after the commission of the alleged offense charged, and while defendant was confined in jail awaiting trial, and not for the purpose of supplying, clarifying and modifying testimony inadvertently omitted from neglect or mistake on the part of the State in the preparation and presentation of its case in chief, but for the stated purpose by the state of introducing testimony of the sanity of the defendant, an issue not introduced in evidence as a defense in the case by the defendant, the effect being an attack upon the character of defendant, whose character and reputation were not in issue. See authorities under point (1); State v. Carter, 131 S.W.2d l. c. 547; State v. Tunnell, 296 S.W. l. c. 427; State v. White, 223 S.W. l. c. 684; State v. Lebo, 98 S.W.2d l. c. 698; State v. Meyers, 82 Mo. 558, 52 Am. Rep. 389; State v. Buxton, 22 S.W.2d 635; State v. Krebs, 106 S.W.2d l. c. 429; State v. Ross, 267 S.W. l. c. 854; State v. Hepperman, 162 S.W.2d l. c. 884. (3) It was error to reopen the case and over the objection of defendant admit evidence on part of the State of acts of violence, viciousness, quarrelsomeness, felonious assaults upon other persons and the offense of breaking jail, all of which conduct and act tended to show that defendant's reputation and character was bad in the particular respect which would affect his guilt or innocence of the crime charged. See authorities under point (2); State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. l. c. 865; State v. Baird, 288 Mo. l. c. 67, 15 A. L. R. 1035; State v. Riggs, 259 S.W. l. c. 458; State v. Barker, 249 S.W. l. c. 77. (4) The court having admitted evidence as to the sanity of the defendant over the objection of the defendant, it was error to neglect, refuse and fail to instruct the jury on that subject, inasmuch as the state had introduced testimony upon the sanity of the defendant. State v. Bidstrup, 140 S.W. 904, 237 Mo. l. c. 284; State v. Turnbo, 267 S.W. l. c. 849. (5) The court erred in giving State's Instruction 6, and in particular to the giving of the statement therein contained: "The defendant is entitled to the benefit of what he said for himself, if true," in that such statement by the court in said instruction is inapplicable to the facts in the case, and not based or justified by the evidence since there was no statement made by the defendant which was of benefit to him, and the statement was an assumption of the existence of facts, invaded the province of the jury, and was a comment on the evidence. State v. Luna, 162 S.W.2d l. c. 859; State v. Garrison, 116 S.W.2d l. c. 26; State v. Busch, 119 S.W.2d l. c. 268; State v. Hancock, 104 S.W.2d l. c. 245; State v. Duncan, 80 S.W.2d l. c. 153. (6) The court erred in giving State's Instruction 6, and in particular to the giving of the statement therein contained: "as the state is to the benefit of what he said against himself, if anything," in that such statement in said instruction invades the province of the jury to pass upon the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony; and that said statement in said instruction singles out and gives undue prominence to unfavorable statements of defendant to the exclusion of other evidence in the case of material facts, and is an erroneous comment upon such evidence. See authorities under point (5). (7) The court erred in directing the jury in State's Instruction 6, and in particular by the following statement therein contained: "The court instructs the jury that if you believe and find from the evidence that the defendant voluntarily made any statements, either oral or written, after the alleged offense was committed, you should consider such statement or statements altogether," because said declaration by the court was inapplicable to the facts in the case when considered in connection with the statement by the court in said instruction that, "The defendant is entitled to the benefit of what he said for himself, if true, as the state is to the benefit of what he said against himself, if anything." Inasmuch as there was no statement made by the defendant beneficial to him in any statement alleged to have been made by him after the alleged offense was committed, to be considered with statements alleged to have been made against himself which had been proved by the State, and the instruction, therefore, had the effect of telling the jury that they must consider the statements made by defendant against himself, alone; and it was an invasion of the province of the jury whose duty it was to determine for themselves the weight to be given to defendant's statements, and any witness' testimony as to it. See authorities under point (5); State v. Long, 80 S.W.2d l. c. 161.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and W. J. Burke, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(1) It was not error to allow the State to introduce further evidence even after the defendant had filed a demurrer to the State's case and after the State had rested. State v. Kauffman, 73 S.W.2d 217, 335 Mo. 611; State v. McGuire, 39 S.W.2d 523, 327 Mo. 1116; State v. Worton, 41 S.W. 218, 139 Mo. 526; State v. Thornhill, 76 S.W. 948, 177 Mo. 691; State v. Ray, 225 S.W. 969; State v. Eisenhour, 33 S.W. 785, 132 Mo. 140; State v. Farrar, 285 S.W. 1000; State v. Allison, 300 S.W. 1069. (2) Evidence of attempt to break jail is competent. State v. Long, 80 S.W.2d 154, 336 Mo. 630; State v. Wilkins, 100 S.W.2d 889; State v. Craft, 126 S.W.2d 177, 344 Mo. 269. (3) The court did not err in allowing the State, after it had rested and after the defendant had rested, to permit the introduction of evidence as to the sanity of the defendant. State v. Kauffman, 73 S.W.2d 217, 335 Mo. 611; State v. McGuire, 39 S.W.2d 523, 327 Mo. 1116; State v. Worton, 41 S.W. 218, 139 Mo. 526; State v. Thornhill, 76 S.W. 948, 177 Mo. 691; State v. Ray, 225 S.W. 969; State v. Eisenhour, 33 S.W. 785, 132 Mo. 140; State v. Farrar, 285 S.W. 1000; State v. Allison, 300 S.W. 1069. (4) The court did not err in not giving an insanity instruction. State v. Meier, 152 S.W.2d 59; State v. Hailey, 165 S.W.2d 422; State v. Mundy, 76 S.W.2d 1088; State v. Farmer, 111 S.W.2d 76; State v. Busch, 119 S.W.2d 265, 342 Mo. 959; State v. Nienaber, 153 S.W.2d 360. (5) The court did not err in permitting the State to introduce evidence as to jail breaks and assault to kill, which was in an attempt to break jail. State v. Long, 80 S.W.2d 154, 336 Mo. 630; State v. Wilkins, 100 S.W.2d 889; State v. Craft, 126 S.W.2d 177, 344 Mo. 269. (6) The court did not err in allowing the State to reopen its case and introduce further evidence even after demurrers had been filed. State v. Kauffman, 73 S.W.2d 217, 335 Mo. 611; State v. McGuire, 39 S.W.2d 523, 327 Mo. 1116; State v. Worton, 41 S.W. 218, 139 Mo. 526; State v. Thornhill, 76 S.W. 948, 177 Mo. 691; State v. Ray, 225 S.W. 969; State v. Eisenhour, 33 S.W. 785, 132 Mo. 140; State v. Farrar, 285 S.W. 1000; State v. Allison, 300 S.W. 1069. (7) The court did not err in instructing the jury that the defendant is entitled to the benefit of what he said for himself, if true, and that the State is entitled to the benefit of what he said against himself, if anything. State v. Busch, 119 S.W.2d 265, Par. 3, 342 Mo. 959; State v. Hershon, 45 S.W.2d 60, Pars. 5, 6, 329 Mo. 469. (8) The court did not err in allowing the State to show by witnesses in the county jail as to the acts and actions of the defendant in regard to his insanity and as to his attempting to break jail. State v. Kauffman, 73 S.W.2d 217, 335 Mo. 611; State v. McGuire, 39 S.W.2d 523, 327 Mo. 1116; State v. Worton, 41 S.W. 218, 139 Mo. 526; State v. Thornhill, 76 S.W. 948, 177 Mo. 691; State v. Ray, 225 S.W. 969; State v. Eisenhour, 33 S.W. 785, 132 Mo. 140; State v. Farrar, 285 S.W. 1000; State v. Allison, 300 S.W. 1069; State v. Long, 80 S.W.2d 154, 336 Mo. 630; State v. Wilkins, 100 S.W.2d 889; State v. Craft, 126 S.W.2d 177, 344 Mo. 269.

OPINION

Leedy, P. J.

Defendant was one of four persons jointly charged in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County with murder in the first degree in having shot and killed Martin Twillman in said county on September 30, 1941. On his separate trial, he was convicted and sentenced to the extreme penalty, and he appeals.

A like judgment...