State v. Spinks

• Citation: 125 S.W.2d 60,344 Mo. 105
• Decision Date: 21 February 1939
• Docket Number: 36208
• Parties: The State v. E. J. Spinks, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

125 S.W.2d 60

344 Mo. 105

The State v. E. J. Spinks, Appellant

No. 36208

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 21, 1939

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Daniel E. Bird Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Ralph S. Latshaw and Ralph S. Latshaw, Jr., for appellant.

(1) The court erred in refusing to sustain the demurrer, in the nature of an instructed verdict, offered by the defendant at the close of the State's case and again at the close of all of the evidence. (a) The verdict of the jury was the result of bias, passion and prejudice. State v Huff, 61 S.W. 908, 161 Mo. 487; State v. Wolff, 87 S.W.2d 443, 337 Mo. 1007; State v. Prendible, 65 S.W. 566, 165 Mo. 353; State v. Welton, 225 S.W 968; State v. Liston, 292 S.W. 48, 315 Mo. 1305; State v. Gregory, 96 S.W.2d 52, 339 Mo. 133; State v. Bennett, 87 S.W.2d 161; State v. Bass, 157 S.W. 787, 251 Mo. 107; State v. Webb, 162 S.W. 628, 254 Mo. 414; State v. Nagle, 32 S.W.2d 601, 326 Mo. 661; State v. Matticker, 22 S.W.2d 648; State v. Archer, 6 S.W.2d 914; State v. Tracy, 225 S.W. 1011, 284 Mo. 619; State v. Goldstein, 225 S.W. 913; State v. Wheaton, 221 S.W. 28; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 867; State v. Frisby, 204 S.W. 4; State v. Miller, 137 S.W. 890, 234 Mo. 588; State v. Johnson, 107 S.W. 1072, 209 Mo. 357; State v. Gordon, 98 S.W. 39, 199 Mo. 596; State v. DeWitt and Jones, 90 S.W. 77, 191 Mo. 58; State v. Francis, 98 S.W. 11, 199 Mo. 693; State v. Crabtree, 71 S.W. 127, 170 Mo. 657; State v. Singleton, 243 S.W. 150, 294 Mo. 316; State v. Goodale, 109 S.W. 11, 210 Mo. 275; Woods v. Washington Fid. Natl. Ins. Co., 113 S.W.2d 125; Pulitzer v. Chapman, 85 S.W.2d 410, 337 Mo. 298; Swift v. St. L.-S. F. Ry. Co., 15 S.W.2d 969; Monroe v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 249 S.W. 646, 297 Mo. 633; Berry v. Peacock Coal & Dev. Co., 253 S.W. 460. (2) The court erred in admitting improper, irrelevant, and highly prejudicial evidence offered by the State, over the objections and exceptions of the defendant, tending to prove that defendant was guilty of independent, separate and unrelated crimes other than the one upon which he was being tried. State v. Martin, 74 Mo. 547; State v. Reavis, 71 Mo. 419; State v. Wigger, 93 S.W. 390, 196 Mo. 90; State v. Snow, 252 S.W. 629; State v. Bowman, 199 S.W. 164, 272 Mo. 494; State v. Isaacs, 187 S.W. 21; State v. Spray, 74 S.W. 846, 174 Mo. 569; State v. Hyde, 136 S.W. 316, 234 Mo. 200; People v. Molineux, 61 N.E. 286; State v. Tunnell, 296 S.W. 427; State v. King, 119 S.W.2d 283; State v. Garrison, 116 S.W.2d 24; State v. Lebo, 98 S.W.2d 695, 339 Mo. 960; State v. Wolff, 87 S.W.2d 443, 337 Mo. 1007; State v. Flores, 55 S.W.2d 956, 332 Mo. 74; State v. Buxton, 22 S.W.2d 638, 324 Mo. 78; State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 87, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Shobe, 268 S.W. 82, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Hillebrand, 225 S.W. 1008, 285 Mo. 290; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 799, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Smith, 157 S.W. 307, 250 Mo. 274; State v. Teeter, 144 S.W. 447, 239 Mo. 475; State v. Horton, 153 S.W. 1057, 247 Mo. 657; State v. Beckner, 91 S.W. 892, 194 Mo. 281; State v. Jackson, 8 S.W. 760, 95 Mo. 623; Wharton's Criminal Evidence (10 Ed.), secs. 24, 32, 42, 52, pp. 44, 119, 186, 217; 16 C. J., secs. 1132, 1133, p. 586. (3) The court erred in sustaining the objections to questions concerning and proof of previous sexual acts of prosecutrix. State v. Duffey, 31 S.W. 101, 128 Mo. 849; State v. Shearon, 183 S.W. 293; State v. Williams, 87 S.W.2d 184, 337 Mo. 884; State v. Guye, 252 S.W. 955, 299 Mo. 348; State v. Smith, 289 S.W. 590, 67 A. L. R. 140; State v. Caldwell, 278 S.W. 700, 311 Mo. 534; State v. Loness, 238 S.W. 112. (4) The court erred in refusing to strike out and withdraw from the consideration of the jury all of the testimony of Joseph E. Gorman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and witness for State. Canons of Ethics, Amer. Bar Assn., sec. 19, Rule 35, Sup. Ct.; State v. White, 99 S.W.2d 75, 339 Mo. 1019; State v. Nicholson, 7 S.W.2d 379; State v. Huff, 61 S.W. 909, 161 Mo. 459; State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 83, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Wilkins, 100 S.W.2d 895. (5) The court erroneously allowed witness Judge Ray G. Cowan to testify in rebuttal to highly incompetent, immaterial and prejudicial matter of and concerning why the Addington and Marriott girls (and other girls) were placed in the House of Good Shepherd, and the court erroneously refused to strike out all of this testimony from the record and from the consideration of the jury. 4 C. J., sec. 2953, p. 972; 22 C. J., secs. 10, 89, 90, 157, 731, pp. 66, 158, 163, 192, 634-637; State v. Webb, 162 S.W. 628, 254 Mo. 414. (6) The conduct, testimony, statements and arguments of the assistant prosecuting attorney were erroneous, highly improper, illegal and prejudicial. State v. Jones, 155 S.W. 36, 249 Mo. 80; State v. Webb, 162 S.W. 628, 254 Mo. 414; State v. Gregory, 96 S.W.2d 56, 339 Mo. 133; State v. Jackson, 83 S.W.2d 94, 103 A. L. R. 232; State v. Bowenkamp, 39 S.W.2d 755; State v. Nicholson, 7 S.W.2d 379; State v. Jackson, 8 S.W. 749, 95 Mo. 654; State v. Hyde, 136 S.W. 333, 234 Mo. 200; State v. Martin, 129 S.W. 887; State v. Snow, 252 S.W. 632, 229 Mo. 620; State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 86, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 800, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Dixon, 253 S.W. 748; State v. Pierson, 56 S.W.2d 125, 331 Mo. 636; State v. Flores, 55 S.W.2d 955, 332 Mo. 74; State v. Mathis, 18 S.W.2d 10, 323 Mo. 37; State v. Taylor, 8 S.W.2d 37; State v. Houston, 263 S.W. 225; State v. Connor, 252 S.W. 722; State v. Dengel, 248 S.W. 605; State v. Thompson, 238 S.W. 117; State v. Goodwin, 217 S.W. 267; State v. Isaacs, 187 S.W. 22; State v. Ackley, 183 S.W. 293; State v. Hess, 144 S.W. 491, 240 Mo. 147; State v. Phillips, 135 S.W. 6, 233 Mo. 299; State v. Clapper, 102 S.W. 58, 203 Mo. 553; State v. Spivey, 90 S.W. 89, 191 Mo. 113; State v. Woodlard, 20 S.W. 29, 111 Mo. 255; State v. Ulrich, 19 S.W. 660, 110 Mo. 365; State v. Johnson, 22 S.W. 463, 115 Mo. 480.

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and W. J. Burke, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(1) The court did not err in overruling defendant's Instruction A in the nature of a demurrer at the close of the State's case. State v. Barr, 78 S.W.2d 105, 336 Mo. 300; State v. Lebo, 98 S.W.2d 697, 339 Mo. 960; State v. Meadows, 51 S.W.2d 1036, 330 Mo. 1020. (a) The court did not err in overruling defendant's Instruction B in the nature of a demurrer at the close of all the evidence in the case as there was substantial and sufficient evidence for presenting the case to the jury. State v. Barnes, 29 S.W.2d 158, 325 Mo. 545. (b) Maxine Addington, prosecutrix, admitted making defendant's Exhibit No. 1, in which she denied the facts as set up in her evidence before the jury in the case at bar. State v. Bowers, 29 S.W.2d 59. (c) The age of the prosecutrix was proven by competent testimony, and no evidence was introduced on the part of the defendant to show prosecutrix was over the age of sixteen at the time of the assault. State v. Short, 87 S.W.2d 1034, 337 Mo. 1061; State v. Worden, 56 S.W.2d 598, 331 Mo. 566; State v. Wagner, 279 S.W. 27, 311 Mo. 391; State v. Hightower, 231 S.W. 567. (2) The court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the question asked Maxine Addington if she had ever consented to assault with other men besides the defendant. State v. Taylor, 8 S.W.2d 34; State v. Stevens, 29 S.W.2d 115, 324 Mo. 434. (a) The court did not err and did not refuse to allow the defendant to cross-examine the prosecuting witness, Maxine Addington, and lay a foundation to impeach her by asking her whether or not she made a statement or gave a conversation in which she said: "About the middle of last summer Frances Marriott and I wanted some money to go to a show, so I called Mr. Spinks, Grand 1668, and he said he would meet us, which he did, at 17th and Broadway, and he took us out near Avondale in a corn field." (b) The prosecuting attorney was not compelled to show statements taken by the prosecuting attorney's office of witnesses, and which statements are part of the official files of the office. State ex rel. Page v. Terte, 25 S.W.2d 462, 324 Mo. 929; State v. McDonald, 119 S.W.2d 288; State v. Richetti, 119 S.W.2d 344. (3) The court did not err or make a prejudicial remark when he stated to the defendant's counsel, in the presence of the jury, that he could continue the examination "if he did not get too loud." State v. Richetti, 119 S.W.2d 343; State v. Meyer, 238 S.W. 458, 293 Mo. 108; State v. McDonough, 134 S.W. 545, 232 Mo. 231; State v. Short, 87 S.W.2d 1034, 337 Mo. 1061. (4) It was not error for the court to allow Frances Marriott to detail acts and circumstances which tended to prove the charges set out in the indictment, even though it did prove other separate and distinct crimes upon the witness and the prosecuting witness. State v. Nasello, 30 S.W.2d 141, 325 Mo. 442; State v. Mangercino, 30 S.W.2d 765, 325 Mo. 784. (5) The court did not err in allowing Judge Ray G. Cowan of the Juvenile Court to testify that he had not sentenced Maxine Addington, the prosecuting witness, or Frances Marriott, to a term in the House of the Good Shepherd. State v. Martin, 56 S.W.2d 140; State v. Dollarhide, 63 S.W.2d 999, 333 Mo. 1087. (6) The conduct of the assistant prosecuting attorney was not erroneous and prejudicial. State v. King, 119 S.W.2d 284; State v. Palmer, 161 Mo. 174, 61 S.W. 651; State v. Dougherty, 287 Mo. 87, 228 S.W. 786; State v. Grubb and Asher, 201 Mo. 610, 99 S.W. 283. (7) Joseph Gorman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, did not commit error in either his opening or closing argument. State v. Sinovich, 46 S.W.2d 881, 329 Mo. 909; State v. Rosegrant, 93 S.W. 973, 338 Mo. 1153.

Cooley C. Westhues and ...