State v. Page
Decision Date | 07 July 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 36415.,36415. |
Citation | 130 S.W.2d 520 |
Parties | STATE v. PAGE. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Howard County; Aubrey R. Hammett, Judge.
Bud Page was convicted for first-degree murder, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Jasper Thompson and Lionel Davis, both of Fayette, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Tyre W. Burton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant, Bud Page, was tried in the Howard circuit court under an information charging him with murder in the first degree, in having shot and killed Thomas Petty. The jury returned a verdict finding him guilty of that offense, and assessing his punishment at life imprisonment; and from the judgment and sentence in accordance therewith, he has appealed as a poor person. The sole question preserved for review by the motion for a new trial is a challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant admitted the homicide, and sought to justify it as in self-defense. The evidence is charged to be insufficient to support a conviction of first degree murder in that there was no evidence of deliberation. It is the theory of the state that appellant killed deceased for the purpose of getting his money.
Both parties to the homicidal event were negro youths — deceased being sixteen years of age at the time of his death on December 23, 1937, and appellant, according to his testimony, reached that age on January 17, 1938. They were employed by Ollie Ennis as hands on his dairy farm near Fayette. The deceased had been so employed for a period of a year. It appears that he brought appellant home with him one night about two weeks before the tragedy, and the next day Ennis gave the latter employment. The two boys roomed in the basement of the Ennis home directly beneath a bedroom and the sitting room, and the construction was such that a conversation between persons in the basement was audible in the rooms above.
Witness Lucy Wayland, a colored woman, lived in Fayette and conducted a restaurant in her home. Deceased and appellant frequented her place, and were there on Sunday preceding the killing. At that time appellant gave her two dollars for which she was to order a hat for him. She testified that he had other money — "He had two $5.00 bills, and so far as I could see, he had some ones." The boys were also at Lucy's the night before the killing, at which time appellant borrowed thirty-five cents from deceased with which he bought whiskey. On that occasion he also borrowed a dime from deceased's brother to buy a sandwich. The several persons at Lucy's place on the occasions mentioned testified that the relations between the two boys appeared to be friendly. The deceased, who saved his money, kept a coin bank in his trunk, and a wallet or billfold in his room.
Appellant appeared at the residence of some friends (Cordell and Jesse Broaddus) sometime during the morning on which the killing occurred — the approximate time is not shown by the record — when he told the persons just mentioned and another associate, one Stapleton, that he had killed Petty, and, accompanied by them, he walked down the railroad track to town and to Lucy Wayland's. The testimony of these witnesses touching appellant's statement and his subsequent conduct is as follows:
Cordell Broaddus:
Jesse Broaddus:
George Edward Stapleton:
There was no evidence tending to show appellant had any cuts or bruises on his face or body after the homicide.
Mrs. Ennis testified that on the morning in question the boys were talking and laughing in the basement until they went to the barn between 9:00 and 9:30. About 10:30 she heard someone go in the basement, and she called "Tom," and no one answered, and then she called "Bud," and appellant answered. She asked if they had fed the stock, and he said, "No, we are going right away" and left. Mr. Ennis heard no unusual noise or loud conversation in the basement on the morning in question. His testimony was to the effect that everything in the basement was quiet, as usual. The deceased's body was found in one of the barns about 5:00 P. M., under conditions presently to be noticed. It was then discovered that the stock had not been fed, the fodder which had been brought up, being still on the wagon.
About four o'clock on the afternoon in question appellant's uncle heard of the killing, and sought out the appellant, and inquired if he had killed Tom Petty, to which appellant replied that he had. Whereupon the uncle caused appellant to be taken to the county jail and locked up. The uncle accompanied the sheriff and his deputy and the undertaker to the Ennis house, where they arrived at about five o'clock P. M. The physical surroundings at the barn are not entirely clear from the record, but it appears that there were bales of straw stacked between the hay stored in the barn and the manger, or where the cows and calves were kept. The deceased's body was found on top of two such bales of straw. The straw was about four bales high. He was found lying on his left side with his knees doubled up with both hands up in his face. He was wearing leather mittens — one on each hand — with fingered gloves underneath. These were removed by the undertaker. There was some testimony to the effect that there was room enough on top of these bales of straw for a man to stand up, but Mr. Ennis testified that the distance from the roof to the top of the straw was a distance of about thirty-two inches. The gunshot wound was described as being "just a hole about the size of a man's fist in the center of the top of the head." It was shown that when the body was lifted the brain fell out. Deceased was unarmed. A search was made, but no weapon of any kind found on his body or at the scene of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Turner
...4 (Mo.banc 1974); State v. Mitchell, 408 S.W.2d 39, 42 (Mo.1966); State v. Williams, 369 S.W.2d 408, 417 (Mo.banc 1963); State v. Page, 130 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Mo.1939). Additionally, premeditation need only be shown to have existed a moment before the slaying and is present if the accused ref......
-
State v. Holland
...74 Mo. 199. That rule is applicable even though the evidence be entirely circumstantial. State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438, l.c. 451; State v. Page, 130 S.W.2d 520, 523 (1, 2); State v. McCracken, 341 Mo. 697, 108 S.W.2d 372, l.c. 374 (4, 5); 41 C.J.S., sec. 392, page 209. It is also well settle......
-
State v. Spencer
...No. 9 in his motion for new trial. State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 83 S.W.2d 98; State v. McGuire, 327 Mo. 1176, 39 S.W.2d 523; State v. Page, 130 S.W.2d 520. (13) The court not err in overruling appellant's Assignment of Error No. 10 in his motion for new trial. Sec. 4125, R.S. 1939; State v......
-
State v. Thompson
...344 S.W.2d 49, 51; State v. Lyle, 353 Mo. 386, 182 S.W.2d 530, 533; State v. Taylor, 347 Mo. 607, 148 S.W.2d 802, 804-805; State v. Page, Mo., 130 S.W.2d 520, 523; State v. Tucker, Mo., 362 S.W.2d Next the defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant the defendant a new......