State v. Mathis

• Decision Date: 04 June 1929
• Docket Number: 29511
• Parties: The State v. Guy Mathis, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

18 S.W.2d 8

323 Mo. 37

The State v. Guy Mathis, Appellant

No. 29511

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 4, 1929

Appeal from St. Louis County Circuit Court; Hon. Jerry Mulloy, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Wurdeman Stevens & Hoester for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to grant a new trial to the defendant on account of improper argument and misconduct on the part of the prosecuting attorney in arguing the case to the jury. Unquestionably the remark was designed to prejudice and inflame the jury against the defendant and the witness whom he had offered in support of his case. The court erred in refusing to reprimand the prosecuting attorney over the objection and exception of the defendant. State v King, 174 Mo. 647; State v. Upton, 130 Mo.App 316; State v. Ackley, 183 S.W. 291. (2) The court erred in giving instruction numbered 6 1/2, for the reason that said instruction singled out parts of the defendant's evidence and commented upon the same and invaded the province of the jury in making conclusions on isolated facts in the case. Sec. 4038, R. S. 1919; State v. Cole, 263 S.W. 211; State v. Shields, 296 Mo. 389; State v. Edelen, 288 Mo. 172; State v. Rutherford, 152 Mo. 131; State v. Adkins, 284 Mo. 687; 16 C. J. 1038, par. 2497; State v. Shaffer, 253 Mo. 320. (3) The court erred in admitting the testimony of Rudolph Baumer over the objection and exception of defendant. Said testimony was highly prejudicial and not binding upon the defendant, as the statements therein made were made out of the presence and hearing of the defendant Mathis. State v. Pace, 190 S.W. 15; State v. Loeb, 190 S.W. 209; State v. Blackburn, 201 S.W. 96; State v. Levitt, 213 S.W. 108; State v. Burns, 213 S.W. 114; State v. Smith, 222 S.W. 455.

Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Walter E. Sloat, Special Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The testimony of Baumer was properly admitted. The wife of the defendant had testified as chief witness for the defense. It was proper for the State to show she had made statements differing from those which she made on the stand. The foundation was properly laid by the prosecuting attorney and it was proper impeachment. 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 461f, 462; State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 595; Glasgow v. Railroad, 191 Mo. 368; State v. Blitz, 171 Mo. 543; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 132; State v. Ayers, 314 Mo. 580. (2) The court apparently thought the attorneys for the appellant had invited the remarks which were made by the prosecuting attorney from his statement made at the time the objections were overruled. Even then, exceptions were not properly saved and the remarks are not here for consideration. Defendant's counsel should have asked to have the prosecuting attorney rebuked when the court failed to sustain his objection. State v. White, 299 Mo. 612; State v. Gore, 292 Mo. 194; State v. Pinson, 291 Mo. 339; State v. Harrison, 263 Mo. 662. The prosecuting attorney has a right to reply to argument of defendant's counsel. State v. Smith, 300 S.W. 1083; State v. Harmon, 296 S.W. 400. (3) Instruction 6 1/2 does not comment on the evidence. However, the appellant and his wife were the only witnesses on the stand who spoke of their relationship after the assault. The court in this instruction assumed the relationship to have been friendly. The instruction was perhaps unhappily worded, but properly stated the law, and the appellant could not have been harmed by its being given. State v. Punshon, 133 Mo. 57.

OPINION

White, J.

From a conviction and a sentence in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on a charge of felonious assault with intent to kill and malice aforethought, the defendant has appealed.

The victim of the alleged assault was the defendant's wife. He shot her, inflicting a very serious wound. Mathis conducted a sort of hotel and saloon at Prospect Hill in St. Louis County. The case for the State is entirely made out on the testimony of Dora Tucker and Benjamin F. Spicer, to whom Dora was married before the trial.

On January 14, 1928, about four o'clock in the afternoon, the defendant came into the saloon drunk and angry. Other persons there were drunk and disorderly. The evidence is somewhat confusing, but it sufficiently appears that the defendant endeavored to get rid of those disorderly people, finally got them out of the saloon, and fired three or four shots into the door and through the floor. Those shots were not directed at anybody. Just before that the defendant, according to the story of Spicer, pointed his gun at his wife and said he intended to shoot her, and she begged him not to; he told her he was going to shoot her and the bum together, possibly indicating his brother. That was about four o'clock in the afternoon. Mrs. Spicer testified that she heard the shots, but at that time she was in the basement in the kitchen. She also heard Mrs. Mathis say, "Shorty" (meaning Mathis), "don't shoot," but she didn't see him point his pistol at his wife.

Mathis went away, and, according to Dora Spicer, returned about six o'clock. He went down to the basement to the kitchen. Only himself, his wife and Dora were there. Mrs. Mathis asked the defendant if he wanted her to cook him a steak for supper. He said, No, he didn't want anything but action. He said, "Give me the steak and I will throw it to the damn dogs." He took the steak and threw it to the dogs. She then asked him if he wanted some coffee. He said he didn't want a thing. He called the names of some persons and said he had been following them. He didn't find them; it would have been too bad if he had. His anger seemed to be directed at persons other than his wife. He was standing by the stove. He took his gun from his pocket and "commenced pulling the trigger," and Dora saw the cylinder of the revolver going around. While he was doing that the revolver slipped over some way and was fired. Mrs. Spicer then described the incident thus:

"Well, he was just standing this way to the stove and she was right over there to the right of him, and he was just standing there with the gun this way and the first thing I knew it turned over that way and she was shot. I don't know how it was."

She did not stay to see what afterwards occurred, but immediately went up stairs. After the shot she heard Mrs. Mathis say, "Oh, Shorty!"

According to the undisputed testimony the defendant dropped his revolver, immediately picked up his wife, carried her up the stairs, put her in his Ford car and started to the hospital. On the way his gasoline gave out and he found someone with a car and took her to the hospital.

At the trial Mrs. Mathis swore that the shooting was entirely accidental. Defendant testified that he was cleaning his revolver and his wife corroborated that statement. He did not know that there was a cartridge in it, and the firing was accidental. He was drunk, nervous and agitated. On the State's theory he was pretending to clean his gun and shot his wife by changing the direction of the gun while he was snapping it, so that it appeared unintentional.

I. The defendant assigns error to the giving by the court of Instruction 6 1/2:

"The court instructs the jury that the fact that defendant and his wife, Bertha Mathis, were on friendly terms immediately after the shooting mentioned in the evidence, and have remained so ever since, is no evidence of the innocence of the defendant, but if you believe from the evidence that, at the time the shooting took place, the defendant intended to kill said Bertha Mathis, with malice aforethought, or to do her great bodily harm, you should find the defendant guilty as charged in the information."

The court's attitude in respect to evidence of the character mentioned is shown when in cross-examination of Mrs. Spicer defendant's counsel asked her how the family got along prior to that time and she replied they "got along good;" that evidence was stricken out on motion of the State's attorney, and the jury instructed to disregard it. The exception to that ruling, however, was not preserved in the motion for new trial, but it shows the theory of the court, that evidence of the attitude of the defendant to the victim of the assault before and after the event was entirely incompetent, a theory directly contrary to the well-established rule that the conduct and the general demeanor of the accused after the crime and his attitude towards the object of the crime are not merely self-serving but always relevant. [16 C. J. 549 et seq.] The demeanor of a defendant in concealing his crime, his flight and other actions which tend to indicate his guilt, are always admissible. Likewise his actions indicating innocence are admissible. The State cites State v. Painter, 67 Mo 84, l. c. 87, in which an instruction similar to 6 1/2 in this case was given, and...