State v. Miller

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Citation62 S.W. 692,162 Mo. 253
PartiesSTATE v. MILLER.
Decision Date23 April 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Holt county; Gallatin Craig, Judge.

Jane Miller was convicted of feloniously conveying a revolver into a jail with intent that it might be used to facilitate the escape of a prisoner, and she appeals. Reversed.

The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Holt county, Mo., at the August term, 1900, for feloniously conveying a revolver into the county jail of Holt county, which pistol, it was alleged, was useful to aid prisoners to escape out of and from said jail; the said Jane Miller then and there intending feloniously to aid, assist, and facilitate the escape of David Miller, who was lawfully committed and detained in said jail according to law, having been convicted of murder in the first degree. Defendant was duly arraigned, and pleaded not guilty to the charge in the indictment. The indictment is founded upon section 2061, Rev. St. 1899, and is sufficient, under former adjudications of this court. State v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Pinnell, 93 Mo. 480, 6 S. W. 221. The evidence established that the defendant was and is the wife of David Miller. At the November term of the Holt circuit court, 1899, David Miller was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appealed from the sentence to this court, and on the date of the offense charged against defendant in this cause was incarcerated in the Holt county jail awaiting the result of his appeal. It conclusively appeared that the defendant conveyed to her husband in said county jail a revolver. Her explanation was that she often visited her husband during his imprisonment, and he informed her that it was rumored that he would be mobbed, and he requested her to get him a pistol to defend himself in case he was attacked by a mob. She got the revolver from her brother, and took it to her husband at his request, and acted throughout the matter entirely under his direction and influence. The defendant prayed the court for a peremptory instruction of not guilty, which the court refused. Thereupon the court gave the following instructions: "(1) The court instructs the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the offense charged. Before you can convict her, the state must overcome that presumption by proving her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, you will acquit her. But a doubt to authorize an acquittal must be a substantial doubt, founded on the evidence, and not a mere possibility of her innocence. (2) The court instructs the jury that the defendant is a competent witness in her own behalf, and that you should not reject her testimony merely because she is the defendant. But the fact that she is the defendant, testifying in her own behalf, should be taken into consideration by you in determining what weight you will give to her testimony. (3) The court instructs the jury that you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony. In determining such weight and credibility, you will take into consideration the character of the witness, his manner on the stand, his interest, if any, in the result of the trial, his relation to or feelings towards the defendant, the probability or improbability of his statements, as well as all the facts and circumstances given in evidence. In this connection you are further instructed that, if you shall believe that any witness has knowingly sworn falsely to any material fact, you are at liberty to reject all or any portion of such witness' testimony. (4) The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Jane Miller, at the county...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • The State v. Murray
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 20 Diciembre 1926
    ......633;. Baren v. State, 23 Tex.App. 28; State v. Thompson, 24 Utah 314; State v. Schneiders, 259. Mo. 319. (4) The court erred in giving instruction numbered 1. on behalf of the State. 30 C. J. 792, sec. 420 1/2;. Haffner v. State, 187 N.W. 173; State v. Keithley, 127 S.W. 406; State v. Miller, 162. Mo. 253; Sinder v. United States, 288 F. 695; Sec. 4025, R. S. 1919; State v. Cantrell, 290 Mo. 232;. State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271; State v. Burrell, 252 S.W. 711; State v. Swarens, 294. Mo. 139; State v. Collins, 237 S.W. 519. . .          North. T. Gentry, ......
  • State v. Isa, 74479
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 23 Marzo 1993
    ...foundation in the notion that marriage "cast upon [a wife] the duty of obedience to and affection for her husband." State v. Miller, 162 Mo. 253, 62 S.W. 692, 694 (1901). Our society no longer tolerates the common law fiction that wives are the property of their husbands, unable to think in......
  • State v. Carpenter, 7300
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 2 Enero 1947
    ......535. . . Where a. criminal act is committed by a married woman in her. husband's presence, she is presumed to be acting under. his command and coercion, is incapable of committing the. crime, and cannot be held guilty therefore. I.C.A. §. 17-201, Sub. (7); State v. Miller, 162 Mo. 253, 62. S.W. 692, 85 Am.St.Rep. 498; Davis v. State, 53. Okl.Cr. 85, 7 P.2d 911; Neff v. State, 28 Okl.Cr. 448, 231 P. 897, 898; Ferguson et al. v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 238, 233 P. 497. . . The. Court failed to clearly and fully instruct the jury as to the. essential ......
  • State v. Henderson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 13 Octubre 1947
    ...... interfering, on the showing made. State v. McGee,. 336 Mo. 1082, 1092(b), 83 S.W.2d 98, 104b(7). . .          We find. no error in the record proper, or elsewhere, and the judgment. and sentence are affirmed. All concur. . . ---------. . . Notes:. . . [1]State v. Miller, 162 Mo. 253, 259(1), 62. S.W. 692, 694(1), 85 Am. St. Rep. 498; State v. Murray, 316. Mo. 31, 39(13, 14), 292 S.W. 434, 438(22); State v. Patton,. 347 Mo. 303, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT