State v. Meidle
| Decision Date | 12 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 40117 |
| Citation | 202 S.W.2d 79 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie F. Meidle, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of Oregon County Criminal Appeal Judge Gordon P. Dorris
Affirmed
Appellant-defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to twenty-five years in the penitentiary; and herein upon appeal contends the trial court should not have submitted the case to the jury because there was not sufficient evidence introduced, he says, to show the corpus delicti. Appellant-defendant further asserts errors of the trial court instructing the jury, and in the admission of evidence.
Defendant forty-one years of age, resided on his farm of 120 acres in Oregon County. He is a discharged veteran of World War II and an expert rifleman; and, when discharged, had served over sixteen years in the United States Army. His house is situate near the southwest corner of his land, which is wooded over an area of about forty acres northeast of the farm improvements. A "creek" runs through the woods in a north-south direction. Defendant testified he had been annoyed by prowlers at nighttime; his telephone wires had been broken; his fences cut; and trespassers had been "hacking" his timber, and hunting on the premises. He had "posted" his land with "Keep Out" signs. A witness for the state testified defendant had said that on one occasion he had "got his gun" and followed a trespasser running through the woods but he "couldn't get a bead on him." The witness stated he said to defendant, "down in this part of the country you have got to be careful about shooting a person," and defendant then said he thought the law would give him a right to protect his farm and "listen when they get on this farm they haven't got a leg to stand on."
Deceased, Charles Combs, eighteen years old, and his brother, Noah, passed onto defendant's land at about 10 o'clock the morning of January 4, 1946. They were armed, apparently for hunting, with a shotgun and a 22-caliber single-shot rifle. They came onto defendant's land when they had heard their dog had some animal "treed" in the woods to the eastward of the creek and of defendant's improvements. According to defendant's testimony, he, armed with a 45-caliber "Army Springfield obsolete model," approached from the west to a point 30 or 40 yards of the Combs brothers. He called out, "halt," and "fired into the creek bank," after which he said, "hey you, what are you doing on my property?" He testified he continued on toward the creek and fired again, intending to shoot over them and scare them, "I didn't intend to fire the gun at anyone," but when he fired he "stepped in a ditch
- - - the gun went off and the gun barrel jerked up and this boy (Noah) said, 'you killed him.'"
Noah Combs testified that when he and his brother approached "the tree," and when defendant Charles Combs was struck in the right hip, the bullet entering about three inches to the right of the center of the body and crossed through and Charles died before "the ambulance came." Charles had not served in the armed forces; "he had just been turned down."
Defendant urges the state failed to show the death was caused by the criminal agency of any person, and such contention is especially urged in view of the evidence deceased had been rejected as unfit for military service. In a homicide case the corpus delicti consists of two elements, first, the death of a human being and, second, the criminal agency of another in causing the death. The elements of the corpus delicti may be shown by circumstantial evidence. Corpus delicti cannot be said to be established until it has been proved that the death was not self-inflicted, nor due to natural causes or accident. And, although it is not essential to the proof of the corpus delicti that the criminal agency of the accused be shown, yet, in order to convict an accused, it is necessary to prove his (criminal) agency additionally to the corpus delicti. State v. Bennett, Mo.Sup., 87 S.W.2d 159; State v. Payne, 331 Mo. 996, 56 S.W.2d 116; State v. Joy, 315 Mo. 7, 285 S.W. 489, particularly the concurring opinion of Blair and White, JJ.; State v. Henderson, 186 Mo. 473, 85 S.W. 576; State v. Crabtree, 170 Mo. 642, 71 S.W. 127. The circumstances we have stated supra () were sufficient to justify the conclusions that the bullet caused death and that the death was neither due to suicide, nor the result of natural frailties or accident. And it seems to us, in view of these circumstances, a hypothesis that the death was caused by some physical defect or frailty which had incapacitated deceased from military service (and the argument that the state failed to make a case because such a hypothesis was not negatived by a direct and positive testimony) is too unreasonable to be seriously considered. Nevertheless, there was also present in the case an issue to be resolved beyond reasonable doubt against defendant in order to convict him of murder - was the agency of defendant criminal or was the fatal wound accidentally inflicted and the homicide excusable. In passing, we observe the evidence relevant to this i-sue in the instant case was also relevant to the issue of the second element of corpus delicti. Re-examine the concurring opinion of Blair and White, JJ., State v. Joy, supra.
Defendant contends the trial court did not so instruct as to submit defendant's theory of defense, and failed to instruct defining "excusable homicide." In the case of State v. Shiles, Mo.Sup., 188 S.W.2d 7, cited by defendant, there was substantial evidence to support the theory that a homicide was...
To continue reading
Request your trial