State v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 01 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 33714.,33714. |
| Citation | 77 S.W.2d 80 |
| Parties | STATE v. SINGLETON. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Greene County; John Schmook, Judge.
Everett Singleton was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Lz Banta, of Ava, and Fred Stewart, of Springfield, for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and William W. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
COOLEY, Commissioner.
By information filed in the circuit court of Greene county, the defendant was charged with murder in the first degree for stabbing and killing one Claude Mead. Upon trial he was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, and has appealed. The principal question for consideration on this appeal arises out of the failure of the trial court to instruct on self-defense.
The quarrel and fight in which Mead was mortally wounded occurred at Springfield, Mo., about 8 o'clock p. m. April 3, 1933. Defendant, his brother Lloyd Singleton, and a friend, Cleo Blankenship, had come from Ava, where they lived, to Springfied that morning; Lloyd having business in the federal court. About 6 p. m. the three drove in an automobile to the residence of Cater Mashburn, whom defendant knew. Mashburn, a witness for the state, testified that defendant suggested getting some women and having a party. Other witnesses said that suggestion came from Mashburn. The four went in the automobile to Mead's home, where the latter was introduced by Mashburn, who knew him, to the other three. Mead joined the others, and the five drove around in Springfield for some time, stopping several times to permit Mead to telephone, apparently in quest of women. Mashburn said that when the defendant came to his place the latter had a pint bottle of whisky from which a few drinks had been taken. After Mead joined the party that liquor was consumed and some one suggested that they get half a gallon more. They returned to Mead's home, where he got out and presently came back to the car with four pint bottles of whisky, and the five continued for some time driving around and drinking, when an altercation arose between defendant and Mead, both of whom were riding in the back seat of the car with Mashburn sitting between them. Blankenship was driving, and Lloyd Singleton was in the front seat with him. Witnesses differed as to how the altercation started and, to some extent, as to the subsequent happenings. Mashburn said that it began with a request from defendant to Mead for another drink and Mead's refusal to give it to him. Mead had custody of the whisky. Defendant testified that Mead tried to force him to take another drink. There was a "scuffle" between Mead and defendant in the car, and Blankenship, at the direction of either Mead or Mashburn, stopped the car. Mashburn testified that he got out, followed by Mead, and that as Mead got out the defendant said: That he (Mashburn) called to Mead to "get out of the way, don't let's have no argument," and tried to shut the car door; that Mead said: "Let the son of a bitch out, he hasn't got guts enough to cut anybody." That about that time Lloyd Singleton pushed him aside, saying: "Get out of the way, let my brother out of the car." That he thereupon stepped back and defendant got out of the car, and he and Mead "kind of went into a clinch and hitting," and he started to walk off and saw Mead fall, and that defendant "went over, got him by the hair of his head and shook his head down against the ground," and that at about that juncture he left. On cross-examination he said that when defendant got out of the car Mead "ran into him; got into a clinch, scuffle." He testified that he saw no knife or weapon and did not himself participate in the fight. He admitted on cross-examination that he had a knife in his pocket at the time but said he did not draw it.
Blankenship, a witness for the state, testified that it was Mead, who directed him to stop the car; that after doing so he heard Mead, then in the back seat, say something to the effect that he (Mead) was the meanest man in town; that defendant made some reply, which he could not distinguish, following which they "scuffled a little bit and Mead got out of the car; Mashburn had gotten out." He testified that after Mashburn and Mead had gotten out, "Mashburn was pushing on him (defendant), trying to get him out of the car."
He said that as defendant came out Mead hit him on the head with a pint whisky bottle, which broke; that the blow "kind of stunned him, it seemed like, and when he got over it he started to fighting with Mead"; that as they fought "they backed around towards the back of the car," passing out of his sight for a time, and when he had got out of the car and back to a point where he could again see the combatants, Mead was down on the ground with defendant over him, holding him, but he did not know whether defendant was shaking him or not.
Lloyd Singleton, for defendant, testified that after Mead and Mashburn got out of the car they stepped away a little and he heard one of them say to the other: "Lets whip them." That Mead came back to the car and hit him, Lloyd (apparently on the body and with his hand); that he (Lloyd) said to Mead "Don't do that, I am in trouble, I don't want to have no trouble," and defendant said to Mead, "Don't bother him, he is in trouble" (referring evidently to Lloyd's "trouble" on a liquor violation charge in the federal court); that Mead said to defendant, "To hell with him; I'll give you some of it;" that Mead further said to Lloyd: "If you move that car I will burn you up," "and he stepped back here and got my brother by the leg, it looked like, like he was pulling him, and Mashburn went back around the car, and was kind of pushing him out, and whenever they pushed him out Mead hit my brother on the head with a bottle, he kind of shrunk down, and when he raised up they went to fighting, and they went around to the back of the car knocking and fighting; they were around there quite a little bit; I jumped out of the car; I ran around there, I said `Let's go boys, quit that fighting,' and we got in the car and left." He further said that when he got out of the car and got around to the back where he could again see the combatants, "they had him (Mead) down there, and Mashburn, they were knocking, fighting around there; looked to me like he (Mashburn) was into it." The last statement was stricken out, as being a conclusion, and the witness added: "Well, they were all three there, fussing and knocking around, I couldn't see what they were doing, you know." On cross-examination he said his brother there had Mead down and was kind of shaking him.
Blankenship's testimony to the effect that Mead threatened to "burn him up" or "burn him out" if he moved the car was corroborated by Lloyd Singleton and the defendant. There was testimony that before defendant got out of the car a similar remark was directed by Mead to the defendant. What the statement meant, or was understood to mean by those to whom it was directed, was not explained. From certain testimony of defendant it is inferable that as applied to defendant, it may have meant to bring or take him out of the car. Defendant testified substantially as had his brother as to the occurrences in the car just before Mead and Mashburn got out, and that Mead or Mashburn said to him and the other two still in the car, "We are going to whip you fellows." He also testified that when those words were spoken Mead "put his hand there" (indicating, but the record is dark as to where "there" was), and said to Lloyd, "If you move that car I am going to burn you down," and also said to defendant, after the talk about trouble above related, "I am going to give you some of it." He then described being pushed and pulled out of the car and struck on the head with the bottle by Mead as he came out of the car substantially as his brother had described that part of the occurrence. He said the blow from the bottle knocked him partially down, "didn't fall plumb down," and partially stunned him. Then, to use his language: "I straightened up, come to my senses, he was still beating on me, and I hit him, and kept backing him around to the back of the car and Mashburn came around from the left then * * * we were still standing up and Mashburn run in there, hit him several times, he hit at me, I throwed up my hand like that, kind of gave him a shove, shoved him down; by this time this fellow was on to me again; I knocked him down and we kind of clinched, he got loose and I hit him and knocked him down and got over him and shook him." He said he did not then know that Mead was cut. About that time he heard Blankenship say, "Let's go," and he, his brother, and Blankenship got in the car and left the scene, leaving Mead lying on the ground.
It developed that in the encounter Mead had received a deep stab wound in the neck from which he bled profusely and died a few hours later. The doctor who examined the body after deceased's death next morning testified that the wound "went in there as deep as the spine and it cut one of the big veins in the side of the neck"; that it could have been inflicted with the knife, admittedly belonging to defendant, which was shown to the witness; that that wound in the neck caused deceased's death; that there were numerous other cuts, lacerations, and bruises about deceased's head and neck.
On leaving the scene of the affray, defendant, his brother, and Blankenship went to the home of the latter's sister, where, according to their testimony, it was discovered that defendant had a cut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Malone
...on self-defense was not required. State v. Baker, Mo., 277 S.W.2d 627, 629; State v. Bennett, Mo., 87 S.W.2d 159, 163; State v. Singleton, Mo., 77 S.W.2d 80, 83; State v. Reed, 117 Mo. 604, 614(IV), 23 S.W. 886, 889(4). It is no defense to the charge of carrying concealed weapons that the w......
-
State v. Littlejohn
... ... necessary for him to act in self-defense to protect himself ... from such apprehended danger -- in these circumstances he may ... do so. But his belief in these facts must be ... actual, not merely presumptive. State v ... Huett, 340 Mo. 934, 104 S.W. 2d 252; State v ... Singleton, Mo. Sup., 77 S.W. 2d 80 ... It is ... the jury's province to determine from the facts and ... circumstances in evidence whether the defendant was justified ... in acting. [356 Mo. 1058] The defendant's proffered ... instructions, which singled out and hypothesized the fact ... ...
-
State v. Richardson
...as a whole and with the other instructions in the case, and when so read defendant's assertions are without foundation. See State v. Singleton, Mo., 77 S.W.2d 80, 83 [3, 4]; State v. King, 203 Mo. 560, 567 (3), 102 S.W. 515, 517(3); State v. Robinson, 353 Mo. 934, 185 S.W.2d 636, 641 ; Stat......
-
State v. Fincher, WD
...has been variously defined as 'substantial evidence,' State v. Rose, Mo., 346 S.W.2d 54; State v. Baker, Mo., 277 S.W.2d 627; State v. Singleton, Mo., 77 S.W.2d 80; 'evidence putting it in issue,' State v. Ford, 344 Mo. 1219, 130 S.W.2d 635; 'any theory of innocence * * * however improbable......