State v. Rapp

Citation142 Mo. 443,44 S.W. 270
PartiesSTATE v. RAPP et al.
Decision Date01 February 1898
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from circuit court, Cooper county; Dorsey W. Shackleford, Judge.

George Rapp, Sr., and George Rapp, Jr., were convicted of an assault with intent to kill, and they appeal. Reversed.

John Cosgrove, for appellants. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam. B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

Prosecution for an assault with intent to kill one J. C. Farris. Upon trial had, both of defendants were convicted. To George, Sr., was assessed a punishment of six months in the county jail and $500 fine, and to George, Jr., a fine of $100.

The indictment in its material portions is the following: "That George Rapp, Sr., and George Rapp, Jr., on the 7th day of May, 1896, at the county of Cooper and state of Missouri, in and upon the body of one J. C. Farris, then and there being, feloniously, on purpose, and willfully, with a deadly weapon, to wit, a singletree of the length of three feet and of the breadth of three inches, and with another deadly weapon, to wit, an iron wagon hammer, of the length of fifteen inches and of the breadth of two inches, which said deadly weapons they, the said George Rapp, Sr., and the said George Rapp, Jr., then and there had and held, did then and there make an assault, with the felonious intent him, the said J. C. Farris, then and there unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously to kill and maim, against the peace and dignity of the state. C. D. Corum, Prosecuting Attorney." The testimony in the cause on the part of the state shows numerous threats against Farris' person and life on the part of the senior defendant, made to others, as well as similar threats and hostile gestures made to the prosecuting witness by that defendant. This bad feeling finally resulted in the assault charged in the indictment, and the testimony on the state's part fully sustained the charge contained in the indictment. On the other hand, the testimony offered in support of the plea of not guilty denied the making of any threats, and made out Farris to be the aggressor in the conflict that gave origin to the present prosecution.

1. Speaking, in a general way, the instructions given by the court of its own motion correctly lay down the law of this case. But there are two exceptions to this general statement, to wit: Instructions marked, for convenience sake, Nos. 1 and 2, are the following: "(1) If the defendants had good reason to believe, and did believe, that the witness Farris was about to immediately do Geo. Rapp, Sr., some great personal injury, then both he and his son had a right to use all the force that was necessary to avert such apprehended injury. In such case it is not necessary that such danger should have been real, and about to fall. All that is necessary is that they should have so believed, and had reasonable cause for so believing. This instruction has no application to this case, however, if you should find that the defendant Geo. Rapp, Sr., voluntarily entered into the difficulty, as defined in instructions. (2) Even though you should find that the witness Farris used the first offensive and insulting language, and was first to bring on the difficulty, yet, if you shall further find that the defendants voluntarily entered into said difficulty, then the defendants cannot be acquitted on the ground of self-defense, no matter how great or how imminent the danger in which they found themselves." These instructions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • State v. Malone
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 5, 1931
    ...bore malice toward the deceased, still he could rely on self-defense, if otherwise entitled thereto. State v. Matthew, 148 Mo. 185; State v. Rapp, 142 Mo. 443. (3) The court erred in giving Instruction 10 on behalf of the State casting the burden of proof on defendant to show he acted in se......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...v. Hopkins, 213 S.W. 126, 278 Mo. 388; State v. Malone, 39 S.W. (2d) 786; State v. Higgerson, 57 S.W. 1014, 157 Mo. 395; State v. Rapp, 44 S.W. 270, 142 Mo. 443. (2) The court erred in not sustaining defendant's objection to improper argument made by the prosecuting attorney in three instan......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 18, 1935
    ...... not authorized to acquit upon the ground of self-defense. State v. Burns, 213 S.W. 114, 278 Mo. 441; State. v. Hopkins, 213 S.W. 126, 278 Mo. 388; State v. Malone, 39 S.W.2d 786; State v. Higgerson, 57. S.W. 1014, 157 Mo. 395; State v. Rapp, 44 S.W. 270,. 142 Mo. 443. (2) The court erred in not sustaining. defendant's objection to improper argument made by the. prosecuting attorney in three instances and in failing to. instruct the jury to disregard such argument and in failing. to reprimand the prosecuting attorney, at the ......
  • Robinson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ......289; State v. Moats, 108 Ia. 13; State v. Marshall, 105 Ia. 38; Lane v. State, 151 Ind. 511; State v. Rowfischet, 12. La. Ann. 382; Goldman v. State, 75 Maryland, 621;. Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 95; Dick v. State, . 30 Miss. 95; State v. McAfee, 148 Mo. 370; State. v. Rapp, 142 Mo. 443; State v. Marks, 140 Mo. 656; State v. Arnewine, 36 Mo. 130; People v. Harris, 136 N.Y. 423; Stephens, 4 Park. Cr. 396;. Com. v. Valsalka, 181 Pa. St. 17; Gonzales v. State, 30 Tex.App. 203.) To test the reliability of a. witness and the weight to be given his ......
  • 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