State v. Mitchell

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtNORTON
Citation64 Mo. 191
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error, v. AARON MITCHELL, Plaintiff in Error.
Decision Date31 October 1876

64 Mo. 191

STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant in Error,
v.
AARON MITCHELL, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1876.


Error to Perry Circuit Court.

J. L. Smith, Att'y Gen'l, for Plaintiff in Error, cited: Wagn. Stat., 445; State vs. Foster, 61 Mo. 549; State vs. Hudson, 59 Mo. 135; State vs. Joeckel, 44 Mo. 234; State vs. Saunders, 53 Mo. 234.)

J. C. Killian & Wm. H. Bennett, for Defendant in Error, cited: State vs. Shoultz, 25 Mo. 128, Instruction No. 11, p. 153; State vs. Hays, 23 Mo. 287; State vs. Nueslein, 25 Mo. 111; State vs. Joeckel, 44 Mo. 234; State vs. Holme, 54 Mo. 153.


NORTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Defendant was indicted in the Circuit Court of Perry County for murder in the first degree, for killing one Augustus Washington. He was put upon his trial, which resulted in his conviction for murder in the first degree. An ineffectual motion for new trial was made and the case is brought here for review on writ of error.

The only point relied upon by defendant's counsel is the action of the court in giving instructions.

It does not appear from the record that any instructions were asked either on the part of the State or the defendant, but the court of its own motion gave eleven instructions--to the giving

[64 Mo. 192]

of those numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, defendant excepted at the time.

The only instruction given, to which our attention has been specially called by defendant's counsel is that which follows, viz: “The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that defendant did willfully, that is, intentionally, kill deceased, then, and in such case, there is no murder in the second degree or manslaughter in the first, third or fourth degrees in the case; but the offense is either murder in the first degree or manslaughter in the second degree, or justifiable homicide accordingly as you may find the facts in proof: that is to say, if defendant willfully killed the deceased, in malice, that is, without sufficient cause or excuse, it is murder in the first degree. If defendant and deceased had a difficulty and you find from the evidence that defendant did not bring it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Cook v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 9, 1903
    ...was erroneous, 'in that it omits the element of premeditation' in defining murder in the first degree. In the case of State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191, the trial judge instructed the jury as follows: 'The court instructs the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that defendant did willf......
  • In re North Terrace Park
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1898
    ...Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475, 7 S. W. 431; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644; State v. Simms, 68 Mo. 305; State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; Stevenson v. Hancock, 72 Mo. 614; Spillane v. Railway Co., 111 Mo. 555, 20 S. W. 5. Besides, as has been suggested by one of my associates, ......
  • State v. Hickam
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 21, 1888
    ...of all the constituent elements of the offense, it was error, even though other correct instructions were given. State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; State v. Dearing, 65 Mo. 530. This instruction told the jury that they might find the defendant Samuel Hickam guilty of the offense defined in sect......
  • Frederick v. Allgaier
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1886
    ...element. Goetz v. Railroad Co., 50 Mo. 472; Porter v. Harrison, 50 Mo. 516; Rayston v. [88 Mo. 600]Trumbo, 52 Mo. 35; State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; Thomas v. Babb, 45 Mo. 384. It is error to instruct the jury that “unless they are satisfied,” etc., it should be unless they believe, etc. (5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Cook v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • December 9, 1903
    ...was erroneous, 'in that it omits the element of premeditation' in defining murder in the first degree. In the case of State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191, the trial judge instructed the jury as follows: 'The court instructs the jury that, if they believe from the evidence that defendant did willf......
  • In re North Terrace Park
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1898
    ...Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Stone v. Hunt, 94 Mo. 475, 7 S. W. 431; State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644; State v. Simms, 68 Mo. 305; State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; Stevenson v. Hancock, 72 Mo. 614; Spillane v. Railway Co., 111 Mo. 555, 20 S. W. 5. Besides, as has been suggested by one of my associates, ......
  • State v. Hickam
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 21, 1888
    ...of all the constituent elements of the offense, it was error, even though other correct instructions were given. State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; State v. Dearing, 65 Mo. 530. This instruction told the jury that they might find the defendant Samuel Hickam guilty of the offense defined in sect......
  • Frederick v. Allgaier
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 30, 1886
    ...element. Goetz v. Railroad Co., 50 Mo. 472; Porter v. Harrison, 50 Mo. 516; Rayston v. [88 Mo. 600]Trumbo, 52 Mo. 35; State v. Mitchell, 64 Mo. 191; Thomas v. Babb, 45 Mo. 384. It is error to instruct the jury that “unless they are satisfied,” etc., it should be unless they believe, etc. (5......
  • 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