State v. Renfrow
| Decision Date | 10 October 1892 |
| Citation | 20 S.W. 299,111 Mo. 589 |
| Parties | The State v. Renfrow, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Criminal Court. -- Hon. M. Oliver, Judge.
Affirmed.
James Orchard and L. O. Nieder for appellant.
(1) The defendant should have been arraigned in the circuit court of Texas county. (2) The statute nowhere makes the constable a peace officer, and he is not authorized to arrest without warrant, except in case of felony. The court erred in giving instruction, numbered 12, for the state. (3) Instruction numbered 14, for the state is also erroneous. (4) The court erred in refusing instructions asked by defendant. (5) The court should give instructions defining manslaughter where the evidence of the defendant goes to show manslaughter although all other testimony goes to establish a different offense. State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 127; State v. Dunn, 80 Mo 689; State v. Wilson, 98 Mo. 440.
John M. Wood, Attorney General, for the State.
(1) Instruction, numbered 10, given on the part of the state, was proper and clearly declared the law. There was not a particle of evidence in the case which, viewed from any reasonable standpoint, would have justified the court in instructing as to manslaughter in any degree. Under the evidence it was a case of murder or the act was done in self-defense. State v. Edwards, 71 Mo. 312; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207; State v. Anderson, 86 Mo. 309; State v. Green, 66 Mo. 631; State v. Weiners, 66 Mo. 11; State v. Hill, 69 Mo. 451; 2 Bishop on Criminal Law, secs. 688, 689. (2) There was no provocation in this case which would reduce the killing from murder to manslaughter in either of its degrees. See cases cited above. (3) Constables have authority without a warrant to arrest those whom they see engaged in an affray or breach of the peace or otherwise violating the law; and, in the giving and refusing of the instructions by the court relative to this feature of the case, no error was committed. State v. Holcomb, 86 Mo. 371; State v. Green, 66 Mo. 649; 2 Bishop on Criminal Law, secs. 652, 655; 1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, sec. 181, et seq. Besides, it appeared in the evidence that the justice, who was present, ordered defendant's arrest, which he was fully authorized to do under the circumstances. Revised Statutes, sec. 4014; 1 Bishop on Criminal Procedure, sec. 178. (4) Instruction, numbered 14, as here given, relative to the credibility of defendant's testimony was approved by this court in the case of State v. Young, 99 Mo. 666.
Defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Texas county for the murder of Charles D. Dorris. On his application a change of venue was awarded to the criminal court of Greene county, in which he was tried, found guilty of murder in the first degree, and sentenced accordingly. From this judgment he appeals to this court.
The evidence on the part of the state shows, in substance, that on the eighteenth day of July, 1888, in the town of Summerville, Texas county, Missouri, about six o'clock in the afternoon, a difficulty and fight occurred between Billy Renfrow, a brother of defendant, and a man named Hughes. Deceased, who was then constable of the township, with one McCaskell, separated the parties, and was standing with his hand on the arm of Billy Renfrow. A crowd of fifteen or twenty persons had collected around these parties, when defendant was observed by P. P. Baskett, justice of the peace of the township, approaching the crowd with a pistol in his hand down by his side. The justice went towards deceased and called out, "Arrest that fellow with a revolver!" Some say he called to deceased to arrest him, others, that he called to some one to arrest the man with the pistol. Defendant then put his hand, in which he held the pistol, under his coat, and started through the crowd, deceased following him. They both passed the crowd and were about thirty feet apart, when deceased, walking after defendant, beckoned and called to him, saying, "Hold on, Peter, hold on," at which defendant turned partly around, leveled and fired his pistol, striking deceased in the head, from the effects of which he died in about an hour. Defendant immediately fled, but returned in a few days and gave himself up. He afterwards escaped from jail, but was recaptured.
As defendant undertakes to justify the homicide, the full abstract of his testimony will be given. He testified in substance: I am the defendant in this case. I was in Summerville in 1888. I was present when Dorris was killed. I was present at the time of the difficulty between Billy Renfrow and John Hughes. I did not see Charles Dorris at first. I saw him take hold of my brother. Tom Allen, Charles Cleveland, John Cleveland and Cliff Spence are all that I remember being right there. The Cleveland boys were armed. I could not swear positively whether Harvey Burris was or not. I watched him all day. We had a few words in reference to a difficulty we had Sunday week before that. At the time Billy was into the difficulty Charles Dorris came up and took hold of Billy. That is the first time I drew my pistol. When these parties rushed up there, I pulled the pistol out of my pocket and dropped it down by my side. Some man said something about some fellow having a revolver. I turned around the crowd. Went around the biggest part of the crowd and started eastwards and passed right by Harvey Burris. I heard somebody say, "Arrest that fellow; he has got a revolver." I thought it was Charles Dorris told Burris to catch him. I saw Burris start towards me. I thought he had something in his left hand and his right hand in his pocket, and I turned around and shot. I shot at Burris. I was told fifteen minutes before that that Burris said he would kill me. I was told about fifteen minutes before that Burris had said right there that he would take my life before the sun went down. Tom Newallen was the man that told me that. I did not shoot at Dorris. I did not hear that I had killed Dorris till Friday morning. I thought I shot Burris all the time. I was on the go when I shot. When the pistol fired I was still going. I saw there was a big crowd after me. Friday morning I came in home and my mother told me I had killed Charles Dorris. My feelings toward Charles Dorris were good. I had no hard feelings towards Charles Dorris in any respect.
Cross-examination: It was Friday morning before I knew Dorris was killed. I left and went to the woods and never came in till Friday morning. I was at home when Dorris arrested my brother. I knew he was an officer. He was acting as constable at the trial in this case. I knew before the shot was fired. At the time I shot I intended to shoot Harvey Burris. He was a little back of Charles. I did not see Charles till he got out of the crowd, then I saw him. I heard him say something like, "Hold up, Peter." I did not know for certain it was Charles. When he said "Hold up there, Peter," I fired. I did not see Charles Dorris at the time I shot. I meant to shoot toward Harvey Burris. I knew Charles Dorris was following me. I was looking back and looking forward all the time. I knew Charles Dorris and Harvey Burris well. They did not look anything alike. At the time I drew that pistol Charles Dorris had hold of my brother. I knew Charles Dorris was not an enemy of my brother's. I thought he was his friend. I passed through the crowd and went on the north side and started east. When I passed Burris I heard him say, "Catch him, Harvey." He was walking toward me and had something in his hand and started to his hip pocket. That is all I saw. I could not say positively whether he had a revolver or not. There was a bulk of something in his hip pocket. I could not tell whether it was a revolver or what it was. Burris and I had some words there that day. We made friends once. My brother came on to him about what he had said about him to me. My brother had nothing to say to him before that. We did not make friends there and take a drink; that is, he, my brother and I. He and I made friends. Excepting what Burris had said about my brother, they were friends.
Burris testified that he was following defendant but stopped when he turned, deceased followed on, and that he was ten or twelve feet from deceased when he was shot.
The court gave to the jury the usual instructions for murder in the first and second degrees; with these no objection is found.
Defendant objects to instructions 10, 11, 12 and 14 which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial