State v. Pyles

• Decision Date: 19 November 1907
• Citation: 206 Mo. 626,105 S.W. 613
• Parties: STATE v. PYLES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

105 S.W. 613

206 Mo. 626

STATE v. PYLES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 19, 1907.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—TRIAL—TIME FOR OBJECTION — MOTION TO STRIKE.

Defendant in a criminal prosecution, after permitting a witness, without objection, to answer a question of the prosecution objectionable on its face, cannot have the answer stricken out.

2. SAME—SCOPE OF OBJECTION.

A motion to strike out testimony in a criminal case, on the ground that it does not prove or disprove any issue, goes to its relevancy and materiality, and not to its competency.

3. HOMICIDE—QUESTIONS FOR JURY—MALICE.

In a prosecution for homicide, whether the killing was maliciously done held, under the evidence, a question for the jury.

4. SAME—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the second degree.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Carter County; Wm. N. Evans, Judge.

William Pyles was convicted of homicide, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. H. Raney and J. L. Huett, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

GANTT, J.

On the 21st day of August, 1905, the prosecuting attorney of Carter county filed an information, duly verified, charging the defendant with murder in the first degree. The offense was alleged to have been committed on the 20th day of August, 1905, the weapon used was a knife, and the name of the deceased was Alvy Chilton. At the September term, 1905, the state elected to prosecute on the charge of murder in the second degree. The defendant waived formal arraignment, pleaded not guilty, was tried, and convicted of murder in the second degree. The punishment assessed was 10 years in the penitentiary. After filing formal motions for a new trial and in arrest, which was overruled, defendant appealed.

The state's evidence tended to prove that a protracted meeting was being held in one of the churches in the town of Rogers Mill, near Brushy creek, in Carter county, which meeting continued for some time. The defendant and the deceased were both young men, and both attended the meeting on Saturday night. There was an unfriendly feeling existing between the young men, and on Saturday night the defendant stepped twice on the toes of the deceased. Each time the deceased requested him to keep off of his feet, and the defendant, each time he walked near the deceased, put his hand in his pistol pocket. The next morning, about 11 o'clock, the defendant was introduced by William Bowman to a Mr. Williams, when Mr. Williams asked the name of the creek, and the defendant said that it was the "Big Savage," and that trouble had been brewing there for some time, and that it would probably happen there that night. That night, about 7:30, the deceased and others were sitting in the church, services having just commenced, when the deceased went out, and walked to a well of the F. M. Rogers place, which was only a few feet from the church. In about five minutes the defendant got up and followed him over to the well. Several persons testified to seeing a difficulty between the two beginning with a fist fight, and then hearing the deceased say: "You have cut me! You have killed me!" And the defendant say: "You tried to draw a pistol on me!" The deceased walked a short distance away and fell, when the defendant said: "I guess, by God, he is fixed." The defendant followed and made a motion like he was picking up something near the body of the deceased. A lantern was brought, and a small pistol with one load in it was found some three or four feet from the body of the deceased and was picked up and exhibited to the crowd that had gathered around. This pistol belonged to the defendant and contained one load, the cap of which had been snapped. The defendant left the scene of the killing and went to the home of Henry Johnson, about eight miles away, where he stayed all night. He told Mr. Johnson of the killing, and said he intended to go and give himself up the next morning. Dr. T. W. Cotton, who was then coroner of the county, was called on Monday and held an inquest. He testified that he found eight wounds on the body of the deceased, six of which were not serious, but two of them were necessarily fatal. Most of the wounds were on the shoulder and back. One wound was under the left armpit and entered the chest cavity, and the other wound cut the cartilage of the second rib where it joins on the breastbone. All of the wounds were made with a knife, and the two last named were mortal. The doctor further testified that such wounds would produce, and in his opinion did produce, a hemorrhage, from the effects of which the deceased soon died.

The defendant's evidence tended to prove that there was a very unfriendly feeling existing between the defendant and the deceased, and that on the night before the fatal difficulty the deceased followed the defendant around in the crowd near the church. At one time the deceased said to the defendant: "Damn you, don't you step on my toes any more." A little before dark on the evening of the homicide, one Lee Beavers and several other young men and boys were attending the evening service at said church, when Beavers climbed the fence and went to the well on the Rogers place. About the time he had drawn up a bucket of water, the defendant and deceased and some others came up. A drink of water was passed around them all, and they heard some other boys up the hillside some distance away using profane language and apparently having some trouble. The defendant said: "They are making enough racket to have a little hell." The deceased replied that he would like to have a little trouble that night, and the defendant then said: "I guess that is what you have been following me around for." At that the deceased pushed his hat back, and the defendant began to back off, and both commenced to strike at each other. The defendant was knocked to his knees, having been struck three times. The defendant drew his pistol, intending to use it to hit the deceased with it, but deceased jerked the pistol out of defendant's hands. The defendant called to the others to take the deceased off, saying he had a pistol. The deceased retorted the defendant drew a knife. During the fight a pistol was heard to snap, which was defendant's pistol in deceased's hands. The defendant admitted cutting deceased several times, but claimed he did it to defend himself, and only after he had backed off some 12 feet, and after he had been blinded by the blows inflicted upon him by the deceased. After the cutting the deceased climbed over the fence and soon fell, and defendant said: "I guess he is fixed." A small pistol was found near the body of the deceased.

1. The information is sufficient both in form and substance to charge murder in the first degree; but the prosecuting attorney, with the permission of the court, elected to try the defendant for murder in the second...