State v. Reeves
| Decision Date | 29 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 19725.,19725. |
| Citation | 195 S.W. 1027 |
| Parties | STATE v. REEVES et al. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mississippi County; W. N. Evans, Judge.
Steve Reeves and Odie Reeves were convicted of murder, and appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Haw & Brown and Russell & Joslyn, all of Charleston, for appellants. Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and S. P. Howell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants, Steve Reeves and Odie Reeves, together with one Devo Ross, were jointly indicted in the circuit court of Mississippi county for the murder of L. B. Pritchard on or about the 15th day of October, 1915. On the trial of the cause on the 21st of April, 1916, the jury found the appellants guilty of murder in the second degree and acquitted Devo Ross. The homicide took place at Deventer, a railroad station in Mississippi county where there was a post office and a store. The defendant Steve Reeves was 21 years of age and living with his father in the neighborhood of Deventer, while Odie Reeves, somewhat older, was married and living with his wife and child in the same neighborhood. Devo Ross was employed by Odie Reeves as a farm hand. L. B. Pritchard, the deceased, was a young man about 20 years of age, living with his father in the neighborhood. Devo Ross in talking with Pritchard had heard him make grossly slanderous remarks about Lena Reeves, a girl of 16 years old, sister of Steve and Odie Reeves. Ross repeated these slanderous remarks to Odie Reeves. Reeves, according to the testimony of Ross, entertained doubts about the truthfulness of Ross' statements and desired some proof. The upshot of it was that a plan was formed whereby Ross should entice Pritchard to some place where Reeves, concealed, could hear him repeat the objectionable remarks.
It appears that the afternoon train passed and delivered mail at the station of Deventer about 6 o'clock in the afternoon, and at that time residents of the neighborhood usually came to the store where the post office was located to get their mail. It was arranged between the Reeves brothers and Devo Ross that on this particular afternoon Ross should induce Pritchard to come to a cowshed 100 yards or so from, and to the rear of, the store, and that the Reeves brothers should remain concealed in the shed and hear the expected conversation. That he might have a witness, Odie Reeves requested one T. M. Byrd, a farm hand working for his father, to come to the shed and overhear what was said. Byrd, a man 56 years of age, testified for the state that he went without knowing the reason why his presence was desired. While Odie Reeves, Steve Reeves, and Byrd were concealed in the cowshed, Ross brought Pritchard from the store where he had met him, and the two sat down by the shed within hearing of the parties concealed. The testimony for the state shows that when Pritchard and Devo Ross started from the store they were followed by Glenn Pritchard, a younger brother of L. B. Pritchard. While Ross and L. B. Pritchard were seated by the shed the latter repeated the slanderous remarks. Whereupon Steve and Odie Reeves rushed out of the shed, and, according to the testimony of the state's witnesses, beat Pritchard to death with clubs; "knocked L. B. in the head," as Glenn Pritchard reported it a few minutes afterward. Glenn Pritchard and Byrd were witnesses for the state, and the only witnesses besides the defendants who claimed to have been present at the time the fatal blow was struck.
According to the testimony of Ross and the Reeves brothers, the plan was laid for the purpose of getting Pritchard committed in the presence of a witness so that they might bring a charge against him for criminal slander. Upon being confronted, Pritchard showed fight and began the difficulty by assaulting Steve Reeves, who struck him in self-defense. The difficulty occurred about 7 o'clock, as it was growing dark. Immediately after Pritchard was struck down and before he expired the defendants, and Ross ran away towards the Reeves home.
I. The defendants asked the court to give an instruction on manslaughter in the fourth degree, and also an instruction on manslaughter in the third degree, both of which were refused. Error is assigned to these rulings.
On its own motion the court gave an instruction on self-defense which is claimed to be erroneous. It directed the jury that if they believed the defendants went to the place of killing for "a lawful purpose," that is, with no intention of assaulting deceased or doing him personal injury, and deceased assaulted defendants with intent to kill them or do them great personal injury, etc., then they were justified in protecting themselves even to the point of taking the life of the deceased; but if the jury believed the defendants sought and brought on the difficulty with a criminal intent, then they could not avail themselves of the plea of self-defense, although they found themselves hard pressed and in danger. In giving this instruction the court failed to apply the principle, frequently recognized in this state, that although one may bring on or voluntarily enter a quarrel, and may entertain some unlawful purpose in doing so such as to commit a common assault or a disturbance of the peace, and in the fight which ensues, if he is assaulted with such violence that it becomes necessary in saving his own life to take the life of another, then he is not guilty of murder, but only of manslaughter; that is, in circumstances where he may be justified in killing another because it was necessary in self-defense, if he had no agency in starting the trouble, he would be guilty of manslaughter instead of being entitled to acquittal if he had brought on the difficulty with some unlawful purpose short of an intended felony. This is called "imperfect self-defense." State v. Eastham, 240 Mo. 241, loc. cit. 251, 144 S. W. 492; State v. Garrett, 170 Mo. 395, 70 S. W. 686; State v. Talmage, 107 Mo. 543, loc. cit. 557, 571, 17 S. W. 990; State v. Darling, 202 Mo. 150, loc. cit. 171, 172, 100 S. W. 631; State v. Partlow, 90 Mo. 608, 4 S. W. 14, 59 Am. Rep. 31. In the case last cited many cases in this and other states are reviewed showing the general doctrine as stated.
The state argues that there is no evidence of any unlawful purpose, unless it was to commit a felony. The defendants all testified that their only purpose in enticing Pritchard to the place where he was killed was to confront him with a witness to his falsehood and prosecute him for criminal slander. But the evidence that Pritchard had made threats against Steve and Odie Reeves, which threats had been communicated to them, shows they could hardly have expected a peaceable meeting with him unless they discounted such threats as vain and idle boasting. They might have regarded his threats as without serious intention, just as they regarded his alleged slanders as without cause or excuse, or they might very well have expected trouble with him without intending to commit a felony upon him. Their purpose, on the theory of guilt in any degree, must be inferred from the circumstances and from what they did. They took Byrd, who was wholly disinterested, to the scene for the purpose of having a witness to what was said and done. This would indicate the absence of a felonious purpose. They would hardly want a witness to a contemplated felony. Byrd testified for the state that he was not certain that the boys had sticks with them as they lay in wait. He saw them rush out to confront Pritchard after hearing the latter's slanderous talk, but he did not see Pritchard struck down at the first onset, as Glenn Pritchard swore was done. On the contrary, he said the fight was in progress for a minute or two, and the combatants had fought back and forth until in front of the door where he could see them, when the fatal blow was struck. Steve Reeves testified that Pritchard first struck him and he seized a club in defending himself and struck Pritchard down. The defendants testified that Steve struck Pritchard with his fist after Pritchard was down. There was some substantial evidence to the effect that Odie Reeves did not strike Pritchard at all, but that Steve alone struck him while Odie looked on.
Whatever weight the jury might attach to this evidence, it was sufficient, under the authorities last cited, to submit to them the issue of manslaughter in the fourth degree, on the theory that defendants may have meditated a misdemeanor in bringing on the difficulty, and were entitled to the benefit of an imperfect self-defense....
To continue reading
Request your trial