State v. Nesenhener

Decision Date12 November 1901
PartiesSTATE v. NESENHENER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Defendant and deceased had been married 15 years. Deceased had been in poor health for some time. His life was insured for $750, and defendant had paid part of the premium. On the day before his death, defendant called a physician, who prescribed for deceased. The drug clerk testified that when she had the prescription filled she bought a vial of morphine. Defendant went for her son-in-law the next morning, who found deceased purging and vomiting. Defendant then went for the doctor, and while she was gone he became unconscious, remaining so until death. Defendant denied having any morphine, but a vial was found in the closet, which the drug clerk said was the one he sold her. The state's experts testified that deceased's symptoms were those of morphine poisoning, while defendant's experts stated that they indicated uræmic poisoning. There was no analysis of the stomach or urine, or other positive proof of the cause of death, and no evidence that, if his death was caused by morphine, defendant administered it. Held, that a verdict of guilty of murder was not justified.

Appeal from Hannibal court of common pleas; D. H. Eby, Judge.

Alice Nesenhener was convicted of murdering her husband, and sentence of death imposed, from which she appeals. Reversed and defendant discharged.

Geo. M. Harrison, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a conviction and sentence of death passed upon her on a charge by indictment of having feloniously administered to her husband, Frank Nesenhener, a large quantity of a certain deadly poison, called "morphine," from the effects of which he died. Several points are urged for a reversal of the judgment, but, from the view that we take of the case, it will only be necessary to pass upon one, as it goes to the very foundation of the judgment; that is, the want of substantial evidence to support it, in the absence of which it cannot be permitted to stand.

In Wills, Circ. Ev. (3d London Ed.) 205, it is said: "Upon general principles, however, it cannot be doubted that courts of law would require chemical evidence of poisoning, whenever it were attainable; and in that case it would seem but reasonable, in analogy to the general rules of evidence, that it should be of the highest character which the nature of the case admits. At least, a conviction cannot be satisfactory if it be grounded upon evidence of an inferior nature, where evidence of a more satisfactory character is capable of being adduced." It cannot be doubted but that in case of morphine poisoning the most satisfactory and convincing evidence of poisoning is the discovery by analysis of the contents of the stomach, the existence of morphine, or traces of it, and, in case of uræmic poison, by an analysis of the urine. In Wills, Circ. Ev. 388 (by Arthur P. Wills), it is said: "Evidence of chemical tests applied to the body or its contents or excreta, whenever it is capable of being obtained, ought to be adduced; and in such circumstances the failure to adduce such evidence, unexplained by satisfactory reasons, gives serious ground for doubt as to the reality of the alleged poisoning. The reagents employed must be free from all impurities, if any importance is to be attached to the result obtained." In the case in hand there was no examination of any kind made either of the stomach, or its contents, bowels, or urine, while there was no apparent reason why one or both should not have been done; and these matters, so important to the ascertainment of the cause of the death of the deceased, are entirely wanting. On the symptoms, and these alone, with the exception of a few suspicious acts upon the part of the accused, the judgment of conviction rests. And these may be stated as follows: Defendant had been married to the deceased about 15 years. They lived as happily together as other people in the same walks of life usually do. He had for many months been employed as a boiler washer about the Burlington shops in Hannibal, working at night in and about the roundhouse for said railroad company. They had four children born to them, three of whom were dead; they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State v. Hepperman, 37944.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 d3 Junho d3 1942
    ... ... Nolen, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent ...         (1) The information charges murder in the first degree and is in proper form. Sec. 4376, R.S. 1939; State v. Wagner, 78 Mo. 644; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200; State v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; Commonwealth v. Stafford, 12 Cushing, 619; State v. Taylor, 190 S.W. 330; State v. Steen, 115 Mo. 474. (2) The verdict is in proper form. Sec. 4378, R.S. 1939; State v. Cropper, 327 Mo. 193, 36 S.W. (2d) 923; State v. Goodwin, 333 Mo. 168, 61 S.W. (2d) 960. (3) Points 4, 6, 17, 33, ... ...
  • The State v. Meysenburg
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 d2 Dezembro d2 1902
    ... ... grotesque manner. (4) Where there is a total failure of ... proof, it is the duty of the trial court to take the case ... from the jury. Where it refuses to do so, the judgment will ... be reversed and the defendant discharged. State v ... Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; State v. Baker, 144 ... Mo. 330; State v. Shackelford, 148 Mo. 493; ... State v. Mahan, 138 Mo. 112; State v ... Young, 119 Mo. 526. (5) The indictment averred that ... under the agreement the sum of $ 9,000, lawful money of the ... United States, was paid to the ... ...
  • The State v. Williams
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 16 d2 Junho d2 1925
    ... ... Richards for appellant ...          (1) The ... reason that the entire evidence was insufficient, in law, to ... establish the corpus delicti ... State v ... Henderson, 186 Mo. 473; State v. Barrington, ... 198 Mo. 23; State v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65; State ... v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; State v. Francis, ... 199 Mo. 671; State v. Gordon, 199 Mo. 561; State ... v. Bass, 251 Mo. 107; State v. Welton, 225 S.W ... 965; State v. Parr, 246 S.W. l. c. 906; State v ... Stemmons, 262 S.W. 706; State v. Gatewood, 264 ... S.W. 42. (2) The court erred in ... ...
  • State ex rel. Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Waltner
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 25 d4 Março d4 1943
  • 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