State v. Rider
Decision Date | 04 June 1888 |
Citation | 95 Mo. 474,8 S.W. 723 |
Parties | STATE v. RIDER. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Saline criminal court; JOHN E. RYLAND, Judge.
Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree. The second instruction requested by him was as follows:
Boyd & Sebree and Davis & Wingfield, for appellant. The Attorney General and A. F. Rector, for the State.
On the 23d day of July, 1883, the defendant and one Rousey P. Tallent were living in the same neighborhood, in the Miami bottom of the Missouri river, in Saline county, about six miles from the town of Miami. Both went to the town of Miami in the morning of that day; Tallent returning home about noon, and Rider, the defendant, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. During their absence, a woman who is sometimes called Mrs. Moore, and sometimes Mrs. Rider, in the record, who was examined as a witness by the state without objection, but whom Rider claimed to be his wife, and with whom he had been living as such for three years previous, and by whom he had a child, then about two years old, left Rider's house with her child, and went to Tallent's. After Tallent ate his dinner, he rode to the river, procured a skiff, was met at the bank of the river by his wife, this woman, and another neighbor lady, and he took Mrs. Rider in the skiff across the river, leaving her on the other side. About an hour before sundown, he started to recross the river; and returning to his home a little after dark, in a path leading to his house, he was met by the defendant within a few steps of his door, by whom he was shot and killed. Rider, upon returning to his home, found his wife gone, and thereupon commenced making inquiries for her of his neighbors; satisfied himself that she had gone to Tallent's; that Tallent had gone away from home that afternoon; that she had been taken across the river; and that Tallent was the man who had taken her off. The evidence for the state tended to prove that thereafter he armed himself with a double-barreled shotgun; afterwards procured a revolver; and about dusk proceeded towards Tallent's home for the purpose of killing him. The evidence for the defendant tended to prove that after he got the shotgun, at the house of his brother-in-law, Mr. Cockrill, he went in search of his wife, going first to the home of a Mr. Merrill, who lives but a short distance from Tallent's; and he, in his evidence upon the stand, gives the following account of what transpired after he got the gun: At the September term, 1885, of the criminal court of Saline county, the defendant was indicted for the homicide, and in November was tried, found guilty of murder in the first degree, and was sentenced to be hanged. He appealed to this court, and at the October term thereof the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded. 90 Mo. 54, 1 S. W. Rep. 825. At the March term, 1887, of the criminal court, defendant's application for a change of venue on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of Saline county was overruled; and in January, 1888, he was again tried in that court, and again found guilty of murder in the first degree; and from the judgment and sentence then rendered, after an unsuccessful effort for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, he again appeals to this court, assigning various errors, that will be noticed in their order.
1. On the application for a change of venue the weight of the evidence was that the defendant could have a fair trial in Saline county; nor is the action of the court in overruling the application urged here as error. On that issue, in cases even where the evidence is conflicting, the action of the trial court will be held to be conclusive unless there has been a palpable abuse of judicial discretion, to the prejudice of the defendant. State v. Hunt, 91 Mo. 490, 3 S. W. Rep. 858, and cases cited.
2. It is urged that the court erred in failing to give the jury instructions defining any degree of homicide below murder in the first degree, and in giving instructions 2 and 3 as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hefflin
... ... appellant. State v. Rouner, 64 S.W.2d 916; State ... v. Sherry, 64 S.W.2d 238. (5) The court erred in ... permitting improper, irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial ... testimony to be introduced by the State as part of the ... res gestae ... State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474, 8 ... S.W. 723; State v. Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. 578; ... State v. Helleker, 201 Mo. 614, 100 S.W. 470; ... State v. Porter, 213 Mo. 43, 111 S.W. 529; State ... v. McKenzie, 228 Mo. 385, 128 S.W. 948; State v ... Hanson, 231 Mo. 14, 132 S.W. 245; State v ... ...
-
State v. Brinkley
...police station murder and his fear of same fate. State v. Lovell, 235 Mo. 343, 138 S.W. 523; State v. Cook, 44 S.W.2d 90; State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474, 8 S.W. 723; State Birks, 199 Mo. 263, 97 S.W. 578; State v. Moberly, 121 Mo. 604, 26 S.W. 364. (67) Cross-examination of police officers Brow......
-
The State v. Spaugh
... ... constituent elements, it is admissible, just as any other ... evidence to establish that fact, and the State cannot be ... deprived of such evidence because it proves the accused ... guilty of another and distinct offense. [See, also, State ... v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474, 8 S.W. 723; Com. v ... McConkey, 101 Pa. 416; State v. Wintzingerode, ... 9 Ore. 153.] There was no error in admitting the evidence as ... to the assault by the defendant upon Edgar, a few minutes ... before the shooting ... [98 S.W. 62] ... of the sheriff, and the ... ...
-
The State v. Prunty
...v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 226; State v. Bailey, 190 Mo. 280. (c) Preparation. Kelley's Crim. Law, sec. 372; State v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 535; State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 485; State v. 233 Mo. 287. (d) Preparation for flight. Underhill, Crim. Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 118, p. 220. (3) The footprints and automobil......