State v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 24 June 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 997,98 Mo. 414
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. NELSON <I>et al.</I>

11 S.W. 997

98 Mo. 414

STATE v. NELSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 24, 1889.

ASSAULT — EVIDENCE.

1. Where, on a trial for assault with intent to rob, the testimony shows that one of three defendants, though not personally participating in the assault, was present, assisting and abetting his co-defendants, it is sufficient to authorize his conviction.

2. While it is not competent to attack the character of a defendant in a criminal cause, unless he puts in evidence of a good character, yet, as affecting his credibility as a witness in his own behalf, it is admissible to show his conviction of a former felony.

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county; D. A. DE ARMOND, Judge.

J. La Due, for appellant. The Attorney General, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

1. The defendants, three negroes, were indicted for an assault with intent to rob one William D. Munson. Tried upon this charge, they were convicted and their punishment assessed at five years each in the penitentiary. The testimony on the part of the state was sufficient to authorize the conviction of all the defendants, Royston as well as the other two, because the testimony clearly shows that he was present, assisting and abetting his co-defendants, although he did not personally participate in the assault made. The testimony of the defendants was contradictory of that of the state's witnesses, but this facts is immaterial, since such contradictions are matters for the jury, with which this court does not as a rule interfere; but only interferes where the verdict of guilty is the evident result of prejudice, passion, etc., on the part of the jurors. All of the decisions of this court teach this doctrine, and they never teach any other. State v. Cook, 58 Mo. 548; State v. Musick, 71 Mo. 401; State v. Warner, 74 Mo. 83; State v. Hammond, 77 Mo. 159; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340; State v. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 5 S. W. Rep. 889; State v. Primm, ante, 732, (decided at the present term.)

2. It is not competent to attack the character of a defendant in a criminal cause before he puts in evidence of a good character; but, when he becomes a witness in his own behalf, he is to be treated like any other witness, and the record of his conviction of a former felony is undoubtedly competent when introduced to affect his credibility, and the records in this case were confined to their legitimate purpose by the second instruction given by the court at the instance of the state. State v. Rugan, 68 Mo....