State v. Schaefer

• Decision Date: 02 May 1893
• Citation: 22 S.W. 447,116 Mo. 96
• Parties: STATE v. SCHAEFER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 S.W. 447

116 Mo. 96

STATE v. SCHAEFER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 2, 1893.

MURDER — INSANITY AS DEFENSE — BURDEN OF PROOF — LUCID INTERVALS — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — VERDICT — IMPEACHMENT — AFFIDAVITS AND STATEMENTS OF JURORS.

1. A judgment in a murder case will not be reversed on appeal, as not supported by the evidence, unless there is a total absence of evidence, or unless it fails so far to support the verdict that the necessary inference is that the jury acted from partiality or prejudice, or was controlled by undue influence.

2. The verdict of a jury in a criminal case cannot be impeached by the affidavits of jurors, or the affidavits of persons who derive their information from particular jurors, to show that the verdict was reached by means other than a fair expression of the opinion of all the jurors, and that they totally misunderstood certain material facts in evidence.

3. Where, in a murder case, the killing is not disputed, and the plea of insanity is interposed, the burden is on defendant to show to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury that he was insane at the time of the homicide.

4. Where the evidence shows that, if defendant was at any time previous to the homicide insane, he continued so, and had no lucid intervals, a failure to instruct the jury that the burden is on the state to show that the homicide was committed during a lucid interval is not error.

5. Where the evidence tends strongly to show that defendant for several years before the killing had a diseased mind, but does not show that it was so diseased that he did not know right from wrong, and the consequences of his acts, a verdict of guilty will not be disturbed.

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; James C. Normile, Judge.

George Schaefer was convicted of murder in the first degree for the killing of Henry Grattan, sentenced to be punished by death, and appeals. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BURGESS, J.:

Upon an indictment for murder in the first degree the defendant was convicted at the May term, 1891, of the St. Louis criminal court, and is now under sentence of death. He was charged with having, in the city of St. Louis, on September 21, 1890, shot and killed one Henry Grattan, with a pistol. The defense was insanity. The testimony on behalf of the state was substantially as follows: Deceased was 21 years of age and a painter by trade. On the day of the homicide, (Sunday,) at about 6:30 o'clock in the evening, deceased and one Bentley went to appellant's residence. The three had been together during the afternoon, and had made an engagement to go in company to a theater that night. Defendant lived with his father and mother upon the second floor of a tenement building. Their apartments opened upon a rear porch overlooking a court or yard, to which access was had from the street through a covered hallway, a narrow passage between and under adjacent buildings. Bentley and Grattan entered this hallway, passed through into the yard, and to the stairway leading to Schaefer's rooms. They called out, "O, George! O, George!" Appellant came out on the porch and looked over. As he did so, the other young men, supposing he would immediately join them, started back through the hallway to the street and reached the sidewalk, but had hardly done so when appellant stepped briskly from the hallway, and, raising his hand, with a pistol in it, shot Grattan through the head. Bentley cried out: "Schaefer, you son of a bitch, you have killed Henry Grattan." Appellant ran back into the hallway, while Grattan fell upon the pavement without a word, and expired. It appeared that appellant was very fond of the theater and of sensational literature, and had written the draft of a play involving an abduction, robbery, murder, and the accusation and acquittal of an innocent party. He wished to produce this play, act one of the parts, and had solicited the co-operation of Bentley and Grattan, and a third young man, named Griffin. He had read the play to them, designated their parts, and given them some articles for "make-up," — to Griffin a pistol and a wig or false beard, and to Bentley and Grattan each a dirk or dagger. The young men had sold the weapons, because (as they said) they were afraid of being arrested for carrying them. This was known to appellant on the day of the homicide. One witness for the state (Keough) testified that when Schaefer was called he came out upon the porch and looked over the balustrade to where Bentley and Grattan stood, and then went back into the house before going downstairs; that he raised the pistol, and shot Grattan without a word, and then ran back through the hallway. About an hour and a half after the shooting appellant was brought to the police station by a man, supposed at that time to be his father, and surrendered to the officers.

The testimony on the part of the defense tended to show that appellant had received some injury on the head in childhood; had differed somewhat from other children; when at school, though proficient in other branches, "lacked judgment" in mathematics; was given to the reading of "wild west" literature, and full of the idea of becoming an Indian brave; was fond of the theater, and devoted a good deal of his time to the elaboration of his play; claimed to possess some magical powers for raising the devil; sometimes arrayed himself in wild west costumes, with high boots, and let his hair grow long. It was claimed that he had at one time been addicted to self-abuse, but there was no evidence of it other than his own statement that he had consulted a physician for it, and been cured. It was shown that appellant had worked very steadily at his trade for several years, earned fair wages, and was a competent mechanic in his particular line of work.

The father of appellant testified in his behalf regarding his conduct and conversation preceding the shooting, and, as the controversy in this appeal is mainly over this testimony, it is here set out at some length: Joseph Shaefer, father of the defendant, stated that he lived at 1116 Cass avenue for about 14 years. That his former occupation was that of a painter. That he was at home on the evening of September 21, 1890, and that George came home about 6 P. M. and ate supper with himself and wife. "After supper, and while I was eating yet, he was singing, and we were enjoying ourselves right nice. While eating I heard some whistles, and afterwards I heard some names called. I don't hear good, as I am deaf in my left ear. As soon as they hollered out at him I heard my wife say: `George, they don't mean you; they mean George Geiss on the third floor. Don't you go down.' The hollering was kept up, and my wife went out on the porch, and when she came in I heard the gate slam, and my wife said, `Oh, my God, now they have taken that foolish boy away.' He went down. I did not see him going down. He always lived with my wife and myself. He was over twenty years old. Question. Were you of the opinion that George was of unsound mind? Answer. Well, yes, sir. By the Court: What peculiarities of his have you noticed upon which you base your opinion? A. Well, all the time wild talk and wild actions. Then, of course, we had to take him almost like a child. Q. Do you know whether or not he [George] was addicted to the habit of self-abuse? A. I did not know it at the time, but I found it out afterwards. I found it out after he went doctoring for it. He was being treated by a physician, and I found it out. Q. Can you tell us of anything else he would indulge in that led you to believe he was out of his mind? A. Well, I noticed him at first when he — About the hair. He didn't want to have hair on his eyebrows, and he went to pull it out, and he wanted to get the hair out altogether. He didn't want to have no beard on. He talked queerly. Get upon a chair and say that is just the size he want to be, — just like a shadow. He wanted 9 foot. And then he talk like he wanted to build castles, and buy O'Fallon park, and build a castle on it. He want to buy the Visitation Convent, and build a big college, and then to learn the doctors. He wanted to build a big college and a hospital where the Visitation Convent is, and to endow it with about one million or one and one half millions to run it. He want to cure all sickness, — leprosy, and all sickness that was going on. He wanted to learn the doctors to treat all those, and then get medicine out. He was going to teach the doctors himself. When he was vexed he was wild all the time then. He wanted to unite all the Indians, north and south, all together, against the whites, to kill the whites; that the white race was no good; that the Indians would not molest or tease anybody. He all the time — whatever plan he had — he all the time wanted to be the head or leader of it. He would let his hair grow long. He always liked long hair. He would make plans to build men-of-war — sometimes he would say one thousand or a couple of thousand — to go to Europe. He wanted to go to Ireland and be their king, and at other times he want to go to Africa. When the fight was there, he wanted to bring the Indians to fight the Zulus and conquer them, and then be their king or emperor in Africa. He thought he would go all over Europe and conquer it, and all the time he would be the head man. Q. Did he ever entertain the notion of mutilating himself? A. Oh, yes. We had awful trouble that time he threatened to. He wanted to do that in order to get big. He had his idea that he would then get his nine feet, and stout, extraordinarily stout, too; and he often threatened that he would pay any amount to a doctor, or to any one, to do it for him; and, of course, we all the time threatened him that if he do anything like that we have to lock him up in a crazy asylum; and then I told him that any doctor that would undertake to do a thing like that, that I would prosecute...