State v. Seaton

• Decision Date: 30 June 1891
• Citation: 17 S.W. 169,106 Mo. 198
• Parties: STATE v. SEATON.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

17 S.W. 169

106 Mo. 198

STATE v. SEATON.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 30, 1891.

CRIMINAL LAW — FAILURE TO FILE BILL OF EXCEPTIONS — REVIEW ON APPEAL.

Where, on a conviction of murder, the trial court grants defendant leave to file his bill of exceptions within 90 days, a bill of exceptions filed after the expiration of that time will not be considered on appeal.

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; M. G. McGREGOR, Judge.

Indictment of Charles Seaton. Verdict of murder in the first degree. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant, Charles Seaton, was jointly indicted with his brother, Grant Seaton, in the circuit court of Jasper county, at its September term, 1889, for murder in the first degree, for the killing of one Lewis Channell in said county on the 5th day of June, 1889, by shooting him in the head with a pistol. He and his co-defendant, Grant Seaton, were duly arraigned on said indictment, and for plea thereto said they were not guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment. Thereafter, at their request, a severance was granted in said cause, and the prosecuting attorney elected to try the cause of State v. Charles Seaton first. On the application of said defendant, Charles Seaton, a continuance was granted him until the March term, 1890; and at said March term, on his application for a change of venue, on the ground that the minds of the inhabitants of Jasper county were so prejudiced against him that he could not have a fair trial, a change of venue was granted to Lawrence county. At the August term, 1890, of the circuit court of Lawrence county, said cause being tried, defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment, and sentenced to be hanged. His motion for a new trial and arrest being overruled, he appealed from the judgment and sentence of said court to this court; and on the 15th day of September, 1890, the day on which the judgment was rendered and the appeal granted this defendant, leave was given him to file a bill of exceptions within 90 days from said date; and thereafter, on the 15th day of December, 1890, he filed what purports to be the bill of exceptions in this cause. If this bill is to be considered as a part of the record the testimony shows that Lewis Channell and William Eddy were employed by Jackson Simpson in running an engine near the town of Joplin, Jasper county, Mo. That William Eddy run it from 12 o'clock at night until 12 o'clock in the day-time; and Lewis Channell, the deceased, from 12 o'clock in the day-time until 12 o'clock at night. On the 5th of June, 1889, at about half-past 12 o'clock in the day-time, Lewis Channell came on duty in attending to the engine and to relieve William Eddy. At the time he had on a ladies' gold watch, a small watch which he had been carrying for about three weeks before. He was seen on duty there in the engine-room at about 9 o'clock that night, and at that time had the watch with him. He carried the watch in his watch pocket, and had it fastened with a string which he had tied to his suspenders. On the night of June 5, 1889, at 12 o'clock, William Eddy went to the engine-room to go on duty, and relieve Lewis Channell. When he got there he found him dead in the engine-room. There was a bullet in his head. The bullet had entered the back part of his neck a little below his hair, and passed through his brain, coming out at the right temple. Part of deceased's brain was carried out by the bullet. The doctors who examined him testified that the shot would produce death instantly. The watch deceased had on the night he was killed had been taken from his person, the strings and cords by which the same were fastened having been cut in two. Prior to the killing of deceased, the defendant, and the family of which defendant was a member, had been living in Joplin, Jasper county, Mo. But, on the day of the killing, and for a few days previous, the family, together with defendant, had been making preparations to move to Barry county, and on the day of the killing had everything in readiness to leave the next morning. Westley Reed, who helped to take the Seatons to Barry county, and who remained at their house the night before they started, testified that he did not see the defendant there that night, nor the next morning, when he got up. Grant and Wash Seaton, brothers of defendant, had gone to bed with him in the same room about 9 o'clock that night. The next morning when he woke up Grant Seaton was standing by the bed, but he saw nothing of Wash Seaton. The next time he saw defendant was out on the road four or five miles from town. He and his brother Frank were driving a cow and a calf; and the defendant did not start with the other members of the family to Barry county, but left much earlier that morning, without taking time to get his breakfast. That they were about three days on the road, going to their destination in Barry county. A week or two after they were there defendant was showing to a young boy named Falkiner a gold watch, which the boy Falkiner described as being very much like the one which had been seen in the possession of deceased just before he was killed. Shortly after this the sheriff of Jasper county went to Barry county, and, meeting defendant on the road, arrested him. He asked him what he had, and he said he did not have anything but 20 cents. The sheriff, Miller, told him that he did not want his money, and then commenced searching him, and found a ladies' gold watch in his pocket, and asked him where he got the watch; and he said that he had been playing marbles with a boy in Joplin just before he left there, and had won it off of him. He did not give the boy's name. He said he lived in Joplin. At the time he was arrested, and when the sheriff found the watch, he turned very pale, and was very much excited. The sheriff took the defendant back to Jasper county, and committed him to jail in said county on the charge of having murdered the deceased. Shortly after being confined in said jail the defendant confessed to one H. C. Dale that he had shot and killed deceased. He said that they had at one time had a difficulty, but that they had gotten over that, and at the time of the killing he had nothing against deceased, but killed him for the watch. The watch which was found by Sheriff Miller on the person of defendant was produced and identified in court, and being shown Mrs. Sarah Channell, the wife of deceased, she testified that it was her watch, and that the deceased had been carrying it for a short time previous to his death, and had it on his person on the day of the killing. Defendant's father, mother, and brothers testified that the defendant was at the house asleep on the night of the killing, and did not leave until the next morning about day-break, when he started with the cow and calf to Barry county. In this they were contradicted by Westley Reed, and also by George Mulkey, who testified, in rebuttal on the part of the state, that he saw the defendant about 3 o'clock on the morning of the killing of deceased at the white-lead works, which are situated in the north-west of Joplin, and are a little over a mile from East Joplin, and about a mile from where deceased was killed. Before admitting the testimony in regard to the confession made by defendant, the court heard a great deal of testimony on the question as to whether there had been any inducements held out to defendant to make such confession, and as to whether it was made under the influence of hope or fear. The defendant and his two brothers, who were confined in the jail at the same time, testified that it was represented to defendant that it would be much better for him to make confession; that he was under age, and they could not hang him or send him to the penitentiary; all that they could do was to send him to the reform school, and that there was danger of himself and his brothers being mobbed if he did not make a statement. This testimony was contradicted by witnesses called on the part of the state, who testified that no promises or threats were made, and that the confession was made voluntarily by the defendant.

The instructions which the court gave in said cause are as follows: "The court instructs you that it is your duty to consider and weigh the evidence in this case, in accordance with the law as contained in these instructions, and return into court your verdict in this case from a consideration alone of the evidence produced before you in this case, and the facts and circumstances as shown by the...