State v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 15 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 17310.,17310. |
| Citation | 183 S.W. 304 |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; Sterling H. McCarty, Judge.
Will Robinson was convicted of willfully and maliciously shooting into a dwelling house, and he appeals. Reversed, and remanded for a new trial.
Defendant was convicted of willfully and maliciously shooting into a dwelling house, and sentenced to two years in the penitentiary. The house was inhabited by negroes, and was 25 or 50 feet west of the levee, facing it. A large crowd of men with pistols and guns went there about 10 o'clock on the night of February 2, 1915. Most of them got on the east slope of the levee, and from that position shot into the house, breaking out several of the windows and puncturing the walls. Jim Evans, one of the negroes in the house, testified that he recognized the defendant as one of the crowd. Will Griggsby, a negro, testified that on that night he saw a crowd of about 25 men with guns and pistols going south down the levee, that defendant was one of them, and that soon after he heard firing in the direction they had gone which was toward the house above mentioned. Prints made by the feet, toes, and knees of the marauders were found opposite the house on the eastern slope of the levee. Those prints were guarded against intrusion, and about noon the next day the sheriff and the owner of two bloodhounds gave the dogs the trail at the kneeprints. They followed it a devious course of over half a mile, along which a man's tracks were seen, and came to defendant's home, entered it, passed into the kitchen to a water bucket, thence into another room, where they jumped on defendant's bed and howled. They went over the route a second time, but were not taken into defendant's house.
The state proved by several witnesses that about ten days previous to the shooting notices were posted in the vicinity threatening negroes with death if they did not leave. That evidence was objected to as immaterial, and for the reason that it was not shown that the defendant was a party to the posting of those notices. The objection was overruled. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendant was in any way responsible for those notices.
E. F. Sharp, of Marston, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Higgs, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
ROY, C. (after stating the facts as above).
I. It was not shown by any evidence in the case that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hogan
...v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147, 17 S.W. 666; State v. Newcomb, 220 Mo. 54, 119 S.W. 405; State v. Bowen, 247 Mo. 584, 153 S.W. 1033; State v. Robinson, 183 S.W. 304; State v. Johnson, 64 S.W.2d 655; Woelfle v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co., 234 Mo.App. 135, 112 S.W.2d 865; State v. Patton, 255 Mo......
-
State v. Davidson
... ... He was ... 183 S.W. 305 ... convicted, and his punishment fixed at two years in the penitentiary. The evidence tends to show that he was a participant in the same offense of which Will Robinson was convicted. 183 S. W. 304. The judgment of conviction in that case has just been reversed by us for the reason there stated. The essential facts in this case are in no wise different from those in that case. The judgment herein is reversed and remanded for a new trial for the reason given in the ... ...