State v. McMurphy
| Decision Date | 31 March 1873 |
| Citation | 52 Mo. 251 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAM MCMURPHY Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Francois Circuit Court.
John F. Bush & Joseph J. Brady, for Appellant.
The instruction given concerning the weight and bearing of evidence of appellant's good character was wrong, and was the virtual exclusion of that evidence from the jury. (2 Russell on Crimes, 785, 786; 1 Wharton American Criminal Law, §§ 645, 646, et seq.)
B. B. Cahoon, for Respondent.
Evidence to sustain a good character was admitted and submitted to the jury, and it was therefore the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to its legal effect. (State vs. Matthews, 20 Mo., 55; Gardiner vs. State, 14 Mo., 97.)
The instruction objected to, stated the effect of evidence of good character in criminal trials, and it contains the three following legal propositions: ( a.) Evidence of good character is of most value in effecting the verdict of a jury in such cases, when from the facts and circumstances detailed in evidence, the jury are in doubt as to the guilt of the defendant of the offense with which he is charged.
( b.) Where however the facts in the case indicate and show the guilt of the defendant of the offense, then, even uncontradicted evidence of good character cannot avail the defendant, so as to inure to his acquittal of the crime for which he is indicted.
( c.) In the case stated in the second proposition the only effect of evidence, (even when uncontradicted) establishing a good character is to lessen the punishment for the commission of the offense.
These propositions are correct.
The defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to maim his wife. Upon the trial the wife was the main witness who testified to the alleged assault. Some evidence was given to impeach her character for veracity and also to sustain it.
In like manner evidence was given of the good character of the defendant as a peaceable and quiet citizen and evidence to to impeach his character.
The following instruction was given on the part of the State and objected to by the defendant. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McNamara
...and is material in all criminal cases. It is an item of proof to be considered by the jury. Whar. Crim. Ev. [9 Ed.] secs. 65, 67; State v. McMurphy, 52 Mo. 251; State Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; State v. Underwood, 76 Mo. 630; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644. When defendant in a criminal case has g......
-
State v. Brunette
...Rep. 414; Hall v. State, 40 Ala. 698; People v. Ashe, 44 Cal. 288; People v. Lamb, 54 Barb. 342; Stover v. People, 56 N.Y. 315; State v. McMurphy, 52 Mo. 251. It highly competent for defendant to show that complaining witness had been with other men at times within the issue, and the opport......
-
The State v. Darrah
... ... same may be said of instruction No. 18, in regard to evidence ... of good character, which is criticized in like manner, but ... which in substance has frequently been approved by this ... court. [ State v. Jones, 78 Mo. 278; State v ... Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546; State v. McMurphy, 52 Mo ... 251; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148.] It is not ... subject to the criticism on the instruction in the last case ... (9). We ... come now to the consideration of the instructions refused, ... which have been made the subject of exception, and not yet ... ...
-
State v. McNamara
...in criminal cases is always to be considered by the jury in making up their verdict as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. State v. McMurphy, 52 Mo. 251; State v. Alexander, 66 Mo. 148; State v. Underwood, 76 Mo. 630; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644. It has also as frequently been held t......