State v. Rufus
| Decision Date | 09 May 1899 |
| Citation | 149 Mo. 406,51 S.W. 80 |
| Parties | STATE v. RUFUS. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Pemiscot county; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Essex Rufus was convicted of shooting, with malice, with intent to kill, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Roberts & Sellers, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
At the February term, 1898, of the circuit court of Pemiscot county, the defendant was convicted of shooting, with malice, with intent to kill, one Rankin Schofner, and his punishment fixed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appeals.
At and for several months prior to the 1st of June, 1898, the defendant and Rankin Schofner and his wife occupied as their residence different parts of the same house, Schofner renting from the defendant. Defendant wanted possession of that part of the house in which Schofner was living, and had been urging him for some time to move out, and go elsewhere. A week or 10 days before the shooting, they had some words over some chickens which Schofner owned. On the day of the shooting, defendant, anticipating, as he claims, trouble with Schofner, put a pistol in his pocket, and went to his mother's, who lived only a short distance away, for some milk, and upon his return, with a jar of milk under his arm, he saw Schofner coming, meeting him in the road, having at the time both hands in his pockets, and, fearing that he was going to use a knife or pistol upon him, he put down his jar of milk, drew his pistol, and shot him, the ball entering the left forearm about 1½ inches below the elbow joint, ranging downwards, and lodging in the arm, from which it was afterwards extracted. Schofner was not armed at the time of the shooting, nor was he making any demonstration of violence towards the defendant, but when shot he went into his house, within a few steps of which the shooting occurred.
1. Among the grounds assigned in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Conway
...Maguire, 113 Mo. 670, 21 S. W. 212; State v. Nelson, 118 Mo. 124, 23 S. W. 1088; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S. W. 449; State v. Rufus, 149 Mo. 406, 51 S. W. 80. In view of these decisions, it would seem that the law, at least as to whether a request and exception are necessary to save......
-
The State v. Lewkowitz
......5231, R. S. 1909; State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271; State v. Banks, 73 Mo. 592; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568;. State v. Henson, 106 Mo. 66; State v. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257; State v. Maguire, 113. Mo. 670; State v. Nelson, 118 Mo. 124; State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153; State v. Rufus, 149 Mo. 406. . . John T. Barker, Attorney-General, and W. T. Rutherford, Assistant. Attorney-General, for the State. . . (1). Everything done or said by the parties to a conspiracy. relating to its purposes during its existence is admissible. in ......
-
The State v. Douglas
...duty of the trial court to give all necessary instructions whether they are requested or not. State v. Branstetter, 65 Mo. 149; State v. Rufus, 149 Mo. 406. It was error for court to fail to instruct the jury upon the subject of reasonable doubt, whether such instruction was requested or no......
-
State v. Conway
......592; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568; State v. Henson, 106 Mo. 66, 16 S.W. 285; State v. Hutchinson, 111 Mo. 257,. 20 S.W. 34; State v. Maguire, 113 Mo. 670, 21 S.W. 212; State v. Nelson, 118 Mo. 124, 23 S.W. 1088;. State v. Taylor, 118 Mo. 153, 24 S.W. 449; State. v. Rufus, 149 Mo. 406, 51 S.W. 80. . . In view. of these decisions it would seem that the law, at least as to. whether a request and exception are necessary to save the. point as ground for a new trial, should be considered as. settled, but because of some new points of attack ......