State v. Shiles
| Decision Date | 11 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 39331.,39331. |
| Citation | 188 S.W.2d 7 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHILES. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lafayette County; Robert D. Johnson, Judge.
John Shiles was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded for a retrial.
William Aull, Jr., and Blackwell & Sherman, all of Lexington, for appellant.
J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., and R. Wilson Barrow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
WESTHUES, Commissioner.
John Shiles was convicted in the circuit court of Lafayette county, Missouri, of manslaughter and sentencd to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years. He appealed.
Appellant briefed only one point. This is based on the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury as to the rights of the defendant to defend and protect his place of business. The state contends that the evidence did not support such a theory but supported self-defense, and that since instructions on self-defense were given no rights of the defendant were denied him. The vital question is, therefore, whether under the evidence the trial court was bound to instruct as to the right of the defendant to defend his place of business. This requires an examination of the evidence.
The defendant operated a restaurant in Lexington, Missouri. Early in the morning of April 29, 1943, at about 1 o'clock, the deceased, Mason Wilson, his wife and two other couples entered the restaurant and ordered a meal. While the meal was being prepared two of the men went to a room to the rear of the restaurant where they joined others in a game of dice. In a short time a dispute arose (not an unusual side-show in a crap game) in which deceased seemed to have been the most vociferous. The testimony shows that deceased used vile and abusive language in expressing his ideas and in making his demands. Appellant, upon hearing this disturbance, went to the room and after some conversation with deceased told him to get out of the place, that he could not permit such disturbances in his place of business. Deceased being reluctant to go appellant shoved him toward the front part of the building. The deceased stated he would leave if appellant would give him two dollars which he claimed he had lost in what he described as a crooked dice game. Appellant paid deceased his money and ordered him out of the restaurant. When deceased started to leave appellant turned to draw a cup of coffee, whereupon deceased threw a cup at appellant, knocked some pies and other articles off the counter and then left by way of the front door. There was some dispute as to how long the deceased was outside before the fatal shot was fired, but all witnesses agreed that the time was very short. The state contended that deceased was shot just as he left the building and immediately after he made a statement to appellant to the effect that he would never come in his place of business again. The defense contended that after leaving the restaurant deceased returned and as he neared the front door appellant in substance said to him, "Don't come in here, if you do you are going to get hurt"; that deceased in effect replied, "You Greek s.o.b., I ain't afraid of you or your gun either, I am coming in"; that when deceased had one foot in the doorway appellant shot him.
On the question of whether the defendant was entitled to an instruction with reference to the right of defense of his place of business we quote the following from witnesses. Appellant testified as follows:
The widow of the deceased testified as to what she heard appellant and her husband say. Note her evidence:
Another witness for the state testified as follows:
A number of other witnesses testifying for the state gave similar testimony....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...issue, it must be presented to the jury by an accurate instruction. State v. Brinkley, 193 S.W.2d 49; Sec. 4070 (4), R.S. 1939; State v. Shiles, 188 S.W.2d 7; v. Robinson, 185 S.W.2d 636; State v. Burnett, 188 S.W.2d 51; State v. Mills, 179 S.W.2d 95; State v. Heath, 221 Mo. 565, 121 S.W. 1......
-
State v. Brookshire
...to retreat or to wait until he was actually attacked.' We need mention only briefly the cases cited and relied on by defendant. State v. Shiles, Mo., 188 S.W.2d 7, pertains to the defense of property. There the deceased and defendant engaged in an encounter in the defendant's place of busin......
-
State v. Ivicsics
...habitation either along with or rather than an instruction on self defense. State v. Kizer, 230 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Mo.1950); State v. Shiles, 188 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Mo.1945). Self defense, as its name implies, defines a defender's privilege to defend himself against a personal attack. Defense of ha......
-
State v. Fincher, WD
...Mo. 1037, 33 S.W.2d 914; 'established defense,' State v. Sumpter, Mo., 184 S.W.2d 1005; and 'evidence to support the theory,' State v. Shiles, Mo., 188 S.W.2d 7." Before considering the evidence upon this record, a brief recital of the principles applicable to the self-defense issue is prov......