State v. Rack
| Decision Date | 10 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 46678,46678,1 |
| Citation | 318 S.W.2d 211 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Melvin RACK, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Morris A. Shenker, John E. Bardgett, Sidney M. Glazer, St. Louis, for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., James E. Conway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant Melvin Rack was convicted of manslaughter in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. It was alleged in the indictment that Rack had previously been convicted of a crime and had served a sentence from which he had been discharged. The jury assessed Rack's punishment at 10 years' imprisonment in the State Penitentiary. From the sentence imposed, he appealed to this court.
The defendant briefed eight points. The first four concern instructions. In points five, six, and seven, defendant complains of rulings of the trial court which occurred during the examination of witnesses. In the last point briefed, defendant says the trial court erred in rulings made during the arguments by the attorneys to the jury.
Before considering the points briefed, we shall make a statement of the facts shown by the evidence: Between ten and eleven o'clock on the evening of June 3, 1957, the defendant Rack, Southern Campbell, who was later killed, and others were on a parking lot located near the intersection of Taylor and St. Ferdinand Avenues, St. Louis, Missouri. Located nearby was the 9-0-5 Liquor Store and a Chinese restaurant. The parties on the parking lot were gathered in small groups drinking beer or wine. While Alphonse Britton was sitting in a car belonging to Johnny James, the defendant Rack, Charles Van Jackson, and Ernest Meyers came to the car and sat or leaned on the fender. Britton called to James and asked if the defendant, Jackson, and Meyers could sit on the car. This seems to have caused a dispute between Rack and Britton resulting in Rack's hitting Britton with a beer bottle. Britton then ran to a nearby house, the home of his mother-in-law. He remained there a few minutes and then returned to the parking lot. What happened after the episode between Britton and Rack is difficult to determine from the evidence in this case. All witnesses agreed that there was a fight between Southern Campbell and Rack; that each knocked the other down at least once. The final result of this fight was that Campbell was stabbed with a knife and died within a few minutes. He was pronounced dead on arrival at a hospital where he had been taken. The defendant, his half brother Roman Columbus Brown, and one Myrtle Whitney left in a car immediately after the fight. A patrolman driving by noticed the commotion on the lot and also noted Rack's car being driven away and he followed it. After a chase, he forced the defendant to stop his car whereupon he placed Rack under arrest. Rack was taken to a hospital and an examination disclosed no bruises or wounds on his body except a small cut on two of his fingers. Campbell's body was examined at a hospital and it was found that one stab wound had caused the left lung to collapse and a stab wound of the heart had caused death. These two wounds were the most serious but there were others, one a laceration of the scalp.
The State's evidence as to whether Rack or Campbell began the fight was conflicting. However, a jury would have been justified in finding that Rack was in a belligerent mood that evening. Immediately before the fight with Campbell, he hit Britton with a beer bottle causing Britton to flee. The evidence of the defendant and his witnesses was that Campbell rushed toward Rack with a large knife in his hand (one witness stated it was a 'butcher knife'); and that Campbell struck at Rack a number of times with the knife before both were on the ground rolling over and over as they fought.
Rack testified that he had a knife which he described as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
The jury evidently did not believe that Rack would have survived the fight with so little injury if Campbell had had a large knife and he (Rack) a small, dull, broken knife. The result, that is, the deadly stab wounds Campbell received, would indicate that Rack had the large knife. In fact, the jury may have believed the evidence of a number of witnesses who said that Campbell did not have any knife. No contention is made that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction. We have detailed the facts because they have a bearing on some of the questions presented for review.
In the first point briefed, defendant complains of the last paragraph of the instruction (No. 2) on the credibility of witnesses. The portion complained of reads as follows:
'In this connection, you are further instructed that if you believe that any witness has knowingly sworn falsely to any material fact in issue, you must disregard such false testimony and may reject any or all of such witness' testimony.'
Defendant says the instruction should have read that such false swearing must not only be done 'knowingly' but also 'wilfully.' We do not agree. If a witness knowingly swears falsely, it means that he knows at the time that his evidence is false, that is, he knows he is lying and does so intentionally. See 51 C.J.S. p. 463, Knowingly and cases there cited. See also 94 C.J.S. Willfully p. 636.
Defendant further complains because the instruction told the jury that it must disregard false testimony and that the instruction should have read that the jury 'should' disregard such evidence. We must rule the point against the defendant. The word 'should' if used in an instruction such as is now under consideration would mean shall or must. Certainly there can be no error in instructing a jury that it must reject false testimony. We so ruled in State v. Swisher, 364 Mo. 157, 260 S.W.2d 6, loc. cit. 14(16-18).
Further complaint is made of this instruction because it told the jurors that they 'may reject any or all of such witness' testimony.' Defendant cited State v. Whipkey, 358 Mo. 563, 215 S.W.2d 492, loc. cit. 494. In the Whipkey case, the instruction read that the jury "should reject all or any portion of such witness' testimony." The difference in the two instructions is apparent. We find no error in the instruction before us. See State v. Abbott, Mo., 245 S.W.2d 876, loc. cit. 881(11).
Defendant, in his second point, says that instruction No. 5, authorizing a conviction of manslaughter if the jury found certain facts to be true, was defective in that it failed to advise the jury that unless all the facts set out were found to be true, the defendant should be acquitted. There is no merit in this contention. The instruction required the jury to find the facts set out beyond a reasonable doubt before authorizing a verdict of guilty. This was sufficient. If defendant wished the court to give a converse instruction, it was his duty to prepare one and request that it be given.
It is further urged that the instruction was not proper because it permitted a conviction if the jury 'only found defendant (did) 'wilfully and intentionally make an assault''; further that the instruction eliminated self defense and that the words 'without malice' and 'without premeditation' were not defined. We cannot agree with the defendant. The instruction reads that if the defendant 'did feloniously, wilfully and intentionally make an assault.' (Emphasis supplied.) Defendant, in his brief, omitted the word 'feloniously.' We further find that the instruction did not eliminate self defense. Note the following portion of the instruction: '* * * and if you further find and believe from the evidence that such killing was committed under such circumstances that it was not justifiable or excusable homicide, and not in the lawful defense of his person.' Malice and premeditation were not elements of the offense of which defendant was convicted. It was not necessary to define these terms. State v. Howard, 352 Mo. 410, 177 S.W.2d 616, 617(3-5).
In the third assignment, defendant complains of instruction No. 6, which submitted to the jury the question of the alleged former conviction of the defendant and, if so found by the jurors, they were directed to assess the maximum punishment. The complaint made is that the instruction did not require the jury to find all of the essential elements as to the former conviction. We find that the instruction required the jury to find, before assessing the maximum punishment, that defendant had been convicted of larceny in a dwelling house, had been sentenced to imprisonment, had been imprisoned, and afterwards he had been discharged upon compliance with the sentence. The instruction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, v. Wolfe
...middle of her direct examination. Prosecutors may discuss testimony with their witnesses during overnight recesses. See State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 217-18 (Mo. 1958); cf. State v. Futo, 932 S.W.2d 808, 814-15 (Mo. App. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 1313 (1997) (defendant's right to cons......
-
State v. Smart
... ... State v. Barton, 142 Mo. 450, 44 S.W. 239. Had appellant been found guilty of manslaughter, she would not be heard to complain of the failure to define malice and premeditation. State v. Rack, Mo.Sup., 318 S.W.2d 211, 216(5, 6). Therefore, there can be no error here when she was in fact convicted of murder in the second degree ... Appellant's final contention is that the trial court erred in giving, over her objection, an instruction advising the jury that the ... ...
-
People of The State of Colo. v. MUNOZ
...“should” in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word “must” because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo.1958). In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the......
-
State v. Jenkins
...same attack. See e.g., State v. Rozell, 279 S.W. 705, 710 (Mo. banc 1926); State v. Swisher, 260 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. banc 1953); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211 (Mo.1958). By Point VIII, appellant charges the court erred in refusing his requested Instruction A, 'thereby omitting the instruction tha......