State v. Peak
Decision Date | 31 October 1884 |
Citation | 85 Mo. 190 |
Parties | THE STATE v. PEAK, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sullivan Circuit Court.--HON. G. D. BURGESS, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
No brief for appellant.
D. H. McIntyre, Attorney General, for the state.
(1) The objection to admission of evidence comes too late in the motion for a new trial. State v. Blan, 69 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310; State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119. (2) The seventh instruction given for the state, has been sanctioned in the following cases: State v. Linney, 52 Mo. 40; State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; State v. Brown, 64 Mo. 367. (3) The ninth instruction correctly defines manslaughter in the third degree. R. S., sec. 1244. (4) The twelfth instruction for the state also correctly declares the law. State v. Talbott, 73 Mo. 547; State v. Curtis, 70 Mo. 594; State v. West, 69 Mo. 401.
The defendant was indicted at the November term, 1881, of the circuit court of Sullivan county, for murder in the second degree, for the killing of one James R. Harbolt, in said county, on the third day of October, 1881. He was arraigned at the same term of court, and pleaded “not guilty,” and being then put upon his trial was convicted of manslaughter in the third degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of three years. He appealed to this court.
I. The evidence was all admitted without objection, nor was any evidence which was offered rejected by the court. It was too late to make any points upon the
admission, or rejection of testimony in the motion for new trial, and the point cannot be made in this court for the first time. State v. Blan, 69 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310: State v. Burnett, 81 Mo. 119.
II. It is alleged in the motion for new trial that the court erred in giving instructions numbered seven, nine, ten and twelve, as follows:
The tenth instruction simply declares the punishment for manslaughter in the third degree. Sec. 1251, R. S., 1879.
Instruction numbered three, asked by defendant and refused by the court, is as follows: “Although the jury may believe that defendant did stab and kill deceased at the time and place mentioned in the indictment, yet if they further find that at the time of stabbing, deceased was assaulting defendant with a club, block, or other weapon, apparently sufficient to inflict death, or real personal injury on defendant, that defendant was thereby inspired with fear of personal and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stogsdill
...without any objection by defendant and therefore is not subject to review. State v. Conley, 12 Mo. 462; State v. Crab, 121 Mo. 554; State v. Peak, 85 Mo. 190; State v. Levy, 262 Mo. 181. (4) After an attempt had been made to show that State's witness, George Fowler, was testifying under imp......
-
State v. Anderson
...murder in the second degree, and there was evidence to support it. State v. Underwood, 57 Mo. 40; State v. Lane, 64 Mo. 319; State v. Peak, 85 Mo. 190. It was unnecessary in defining murder in the second degree, that the meaning of “feloniously” should be explained. This word is not an elem......
-
State v. Bristol
... ... Flory, 40 Wyo. 184. Instruction numbered 17 ... given by the court and objected to by appellant is supported ... by Brickwood Sacketts on Instructions, also State v ... McCann (Ore.) 72 P. 137; see annotation 45 L. R. A. 687; ... also State v. Hicks, 92 Mo. 431; State v ... Peak, 85 Mo. 190; Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 33 ... Gratt. 872; see also 13 R. C. L. 823, and Volume 3, ... Randall's Instructions, p. 2949. A right of self-defense ... can only obtain where the party pleading it acts from ... necessity and is wholly free from wrong or blame in ... occasioning ... ...
-
Oglesby v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...at the trial, and makes material admissions affecting his own interest, he is bound thereby. [State v. Curtis, 70 Mo. 594 at 595; State v. Peak, 85 Mo. 190; Bogie v. 96 Mo. 85, 9 S.W. 14; State v. Brooks, 99 Mo. 137, 12 S.W. 633; State v. Bryant, 102 Mo. 24, 14 S.W. 822; State v. Turlington......