State v. Miller
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Citation | 62 S.W. 692,162 Mo. 253 |
Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
Decision Date | 23 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: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State v. Murray
......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
...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
......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
...... 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, ......