State v. McCanon
| Decision Date | 31 October 1872 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. PATRICK MCCANON, Plaintiff in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Washington Circuit Court.
L. F. Denning, for Plaintiff in Error, cited in argument: Rex. vs. Crocket, 4 Carr. & Payne, 544; Rex vs. Van Butchell, 3 Carr.& Payne, 631; State vs. Poll., 1 Hawks, 442; Moore vs. Commonwealth, 2 Leigh, 706; Smith vs. State, 9 Humph., 24; Rex. vs. Murphy, 1 Irish. Cri., 38; Rex vs. Errington, 2 Lewin Crown Cas. 148; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 158.
J. L. Thomas and Reynolds & Relfe, for Defendant in Error.WAGNER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.
The accused, in conjunction with others, was indicted for the murder of one Herrington, and was convicted of murder in the second degree.
The material question upon the trial was whether the defendant was present, aiding and assisting in the commission of the offence.
A statement of the murdered man made previous to his death, showing that the defendant was present and took part in the crime, was admitted as a dying declaration.
The defendant objected to the admission of this testimony, because no proper foundation had been laid to authorize it.
It was not shown that the deceased had any immediate apprehension of dying, but, on the contrary, he expressed strong hopes of recovering.
The question of the admissibility of dying declarations was recently before this court in the case of the State vs. Simon, (50 Mo., 370, 1872.)and we there held that in order to render such declarations admissible in evidence, it must appear that the party making them was under the belief that his dissolution was near at hand, and that he had abandoned all hope of recovery. From this it follows that the court erred in permitting the declaration to be received in evidence.
There was other evidence, going to establish the same fact, and tending to show that the accused was present, and aiding in the commission of the crime; but, as we cannot tell what weight the jury gave to the illegal evidence, the cause must be reversed.
We see no other objection to the ruling of the court in the matter of admitting or rejecting testimony.
The instructions given by the court presented the law of the case to the jury justly and fairly, and are unobjectionable with one exception. An instruction was given to the effect that the dying declarations of a person who had been killed, if made with regard to the circumstances which produced his death, are to be received with the same degree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Barnett
... ... idle interest is properly chargeable. Clyce v. Anderson, ... Ex'r, 49 Mo. 41. (6) It has often been held in this ... state that a final settlement by an administrator or guardian ... has the force of a judgment, and can not be impeached in a ... collateral proceeding ... ...
-
The State v. Zorn
...with which the jury has nothing to do. State v. Burns, 33 Mo. 483; State v. Johnson, 118 Mo. 504; State v. Sexton, 147 Mo. 102; State v. McCanon, 51 Mo. 160; Wharton Criminal Evidence (9 Ed.), sec. 297; State v. Simon, 50 Mo. 370; State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 124. (3) The court erred in giving ......
-
State v. Dipley
...to the same credibility as if the declarant had been examined under oath as a witness and testified in court to the same facts. [State v. McCanon, 51 Mo. 160; State v. Vansant, 80 Mo. 67.] On the other hand, it was held in the case of State v. Reed, 137 Mo. 125, 38 S.W. 574, that the court ......
-
State v. Pagels
...hope of recovery, and was under a well-founded apprehension of immediate and impending dissolution. State v. Simon, 50 Mo. 370; State v. McCannon, 51 Mo. 160; v. Draper, 70 Mo. 546. It was sufficient that the substance of the declarations should be given in evidence, the witness stating tha......