State v. Simms

Decision Date30 April 1880
Citation71 Mo. 538
PartiesTHE STATE v. SIMMS, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Howell Circuit Court.--HON. J. R. WOODSIDE, Judge.

REVERSED.

Livingston & Mitchell for appellant.

J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.

NORTON, J.

This case has heretofore been before this court, and is reported in 68 Mo. 305, upon an examination of which it will be seen that the judgment was reversed solely because of the error committed by the trial court in giving an instruction to the effect that insanity, when set up as a defense, could only be proven by direct evidence. Upon a re-trial of the cause this error was corrected, and defendant was again convicted of murder in the second degree, and has again appealed, assigning numerous errors, which we will notice in the order presented by his counsel in their brief.

1. CRIMINAL LAW: arraignment.

First, it is insisted that as on the former trial defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, which operated as an acquittal of murder in the first degree, charged in the indictment, under the rule laid down in the case of the State v. Ross, 29 Mo. 32, defendant could not again be put upon his trial without a new arraignment, and that as the record does not show such an arraignment, the judgment should be reversed. As far as the case of the State v. Ross has gone, it has never been held to go further than that when a person is convicted of murder in the second degree on an indictment for murder in the first degree, and such judgment is reversed, such person can only be tried the second time for murder in the second degree, or some grade of manslaughter. It does not go to the extent of requiring a new arraignment; and as the record before us shows an arraignment of defendant and an entry of his plea of not guilty, that is sufficient. The plea of not guilty thus entered on his original arraignment was not limited to the charge murder in the first degree, but applied also to any degree of homicide below that grade.

It is also insisted that the court e in not allowing medical experts to state their opinion as to defendant being afflicted with erotomania, defined to be “a morbid sexual propensity,” basing such opinion upon the fact shown by the evidence of defendant, that a short time before the homicide he had attempted to commit a rape upon the daughter of one Hudlow. This objection is not supported by the record, upon an examination of which we find a number of physicians were examined touching their opinion as to the sanity of defendant, formed from all the evidence given in the case. Nearly if not all of them stated that they had heard all the evidence, after which they were allowed by the court to give their opinion based upon such evidence as to the sanity of the accused.

2. ______: evidence.

Besides this, no connection is perceivable between a species of monomania which leads to the commission of rape, and that which leads to homicide. Defendant was allowed the largest latitude in the examination of experts as well as others who knew defendant intimately as to the fact of his insanity, which we may add was altogether...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Green v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1957
    ...639, 47 S.Ct. 96, 71 L.Ed. 817 (citing Trono v. United States); Butler v. State, 177 Miss. 91, 100, 170 So. 148. Missouri.—See State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, 540—541; State v. Stallings, 334 Mo. 1, 5, 64 S.W.2d 643. Nebraska.—Bohanan v. State, 18 Neb. 57, 58—77, 24 N.W. 390, submission of caus......
  • The State v. Goddard
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 23, 1901
    ...been set aside, the defendant can not again be tried for murder in the first degree. [State v. Billings, 140 Mo. 193, 41 S.W. 778; State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538; State Bruffey, 75 Mo. 389 at 393; State v. Anderson, 89 Mo. 312, 1 S.W. 135; State v. Punshon, 133 Mo. 44, 34 S.W. 25.] But in this ......
  • State v. LaMance
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 25, 1941
    ...... C. J. 345, sec. 598. This court has had occasion to consider. the question. [See State v. Garrett, 276 Mo. 302,. 207 S.W. 784, l. c. 787(5).] It was there held that it was. the duty of the trial court to define such terms. In that. case this court approved the ruling in State v. Simms, 71 Mo. 538, l. c. 540, where the court tersely. said:. . .          "It. is insisted, however, that the court should in some. instruction have properly defined the words malice and. deliberation used in the said instruction. These are terms. having a well defined legal meaning, ......
  • State v. Stroemple
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 10, 1947
    ......Simms, 71 Mo. 538; State v. Schierhoff, 103 Mo. 47; Sec. 3939, R.S. 1939; State v. Taylor, 171 Mo. 465, 71 S.W. 1005; State v. Goddard, 162 Mo. 198, 62. S.W. 697; State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 241, 9 S.W. 636;. State v. Vincent, 91 Mo. 662, 4 S.W. 430; State. v. Eaton, 75 Mo. 586. (2) Instruction 7, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT