State v. Soanlan

• Decision Date: 31 October 1874
• Parties: THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. MICHAEL SOANLAN, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

58 Mo. 204

THE STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,

v.MICHAEL SOANLAN, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1874.

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.

C. B. Smythe, for Appellant.

J. C. Normile, for Respondent, cited Commonwealth vs. Mullins, 2 Allen [[[[[Mass.], 296; Commonwealth vs. Hills, 10 Cush., 530; 1 Whart., § 755, [[[6 th Ed.]; Cook vs. Mix, 11 Conn., 432; Reynolds vs. Lounsbury, 6 Hill, 53; Chouteau vs. Sarpy, 8 Mo., 733; Roscoe's Crim. Ev. [6th Ed.], 106; State vs. LeBlanc, 1 Const., 354; State vs. Whittier, 21 Me., 341; Washburn vs. The People, 10 Mich., 372; 2 Wagn. Stat., 1374, § 8.

LEWIS, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, committed upon his wife, and sentenced to death. His appeal to this court brings us but one question for review. This appears in the following extract from the bill of exceptions:

“The State then offered as a witness in behalf of the prosecution, Mamie Scanlan. Upon being thus presented, the defendant objected to her being sworn and examined because of her tender years, whereupon she was examined by the judge respecting her qualifications as a witness; and upon this examination, the child, being much frightened and scarcely able to speak above her breath, stated to the judge that she could not tell her age, that she did not know the nature or obligation of an oath, nor what would be the consequences of false swearing. The answers of the child to the questions of the judge, were in variably in monosyllables, yes or no, and uttered in a tone scarcely audible. Upon the first examination, the judge refused to have her sworn. Upon a re-examination, however, the court, from inspection of the witness, judged her to be between nine and ten years of age, and, having partially recovered from a fright occasioned by surroundings entirely new to her, the judge ascertained from her statements that she was the daughter of the defendant, that she knew her prayers, could read some, believed in God, and thought it wrong to tell lies. She further stated she was present at the time her mother was injured by the defendant. And thereupon the judge directed the witness to be sworn as a witness in the case. To which decision of the court, allowing said witness to be sworn, the defendant by his counsel, then and there, excepted.”

We find here nothing which by any rule of law or practice will permit us to interfere with the verdict. The ruling of the Criminal Court embodied no proper subject for appellate revision. The capacity or incapacity of the child as a witness in certain essential particulars was a question of fact which the judge determined upon personal inspection and oral examination. If any principle of law had been declared by him--as that, although found incapable of discriminating between truth and falsehood, the law made her, nevertheless, a competent witness--that might well be brought here for review. But I can find no case in which...