State v. Rapp
Citation | 142 Mo. 443,44 S.W. 270 |
Parties | STATE v. RAPP et al. |
Decision Date | 01 February 1898 |
Court | United 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.
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: 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: These instructions...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Malone
...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
...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
...... 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
......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 ......