State v. Stenzel
| Decision Date | 13 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 21888.,21888. |
| Citation | 220 S.W. 882 |
| Parties | STATE v. STENZEL |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles P. Davis, Judge.
Jacob Stenzel was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant, Jacob Stenzel, was indicted upon a charge of murder in the second degree. Upon a trial in the circuit court of St. Louis, he was found guilty as charged, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of 10 years. A motion for a new trial and in arrest of judgment having been overruled, the case was appealed to this court. Since there is but little, if any, dispute as to the facts, they may be stated in the order in which they will most readily be understood, rather than in the order in which they were given in evidence.
The deceased, Dr. Frederick B. Pohlmann, was a physician in St. Louis, and on the 14th day of May, 1917, maintained an office on the first floor of a building which was located at the northwest corner of North Market and Twenty-Second streets in that city. About 7 o'clock in the evening of that day, the defendant went to Dr. Pohlmann's office, and there engaged in conversation with him in his private office. The doors of this office, both to the hall and to the reception room, were closed. Some patients were in the reception room. Dr. Eugene L. Broeker, another physician, was in his office at the rear end of the hall. Dr. Pohlmann and the defendant were alone in Dr. Pohlmann's private office. After a few minutes, some loud talking was heard in the private office, and then a sound as of chairs being pushed back, and the defendant ran out of the room, through the door opening into the hallway, out of the front door, down three or four steps to the sidewalk, and diagonally across North Market street, in a northwesterly direction, with Dr. Pohlmann in close pursuit, about six feet behind. When the defendant reached a point a few feet from the curb on the south side of Market street, he turned and, with a revolver, fired one shot into the ground near his pursuer's feet, and after a slight pause, a second shot, which penetrated the abdomen of Dr. Pohlmann about two inches to the right of the median line. From this wound Dr. Pohlmann died within a few minutes. The evidence shows that Dr. Pohlmann had been treating defendant's married daughter professionally for some time previous, and defendant had heard that the doctor had said that this daughter's mind was affected and had been at the time of her marriage, some 8 years prior to the tragedy, and that her parents had done wrong in permitting her to marry. Defendant's purpose, as he testified, in seeking the interview was to inquire the cause for this remark, inasmuch as Dr. Pohlmann had known the patient only about 2 years. A few minutes after defendant and deceased entered the private office, a witness for the state, who was seated in the waiting room, heard a voice, which he took to be that of the deceased, say in a loud tone, in substance, "I said she was melancholy, and I say it again," and then, "Did you come here for an argument?" The witness then heard another voice say, "What I want to know is"—but failed to understand anything further. Immediately afterwards he heard a sound as of moving chairs, and then the sound of two men running out of the private office into the hall, and thence into the street. In a very short time he heard two shots out in the street. He then went out, and found Dr. Pohlmann lying on the sidewalk, fatally wounded. By other witnesses it was shown that the flight and pursuit continued, as above stated, into the street and to the point where the shooting occurred, a distance estimated at from 50 to 75 feet from the front door of the building. There was testimony that as defendant crossed the street he was attempting to draw something from the right front pocket of his trousers, and the shots were heard immediately afterward; that after the first shot was fired deceased made a movement forward, or a gesture, as if seeking to grasp the revolver, and at this juncture the second shot was fired. Deceased then staggered back across the street to the point where he fell, perhaps 50 feet away. Defendant testified that when he spoke to deceased in the private office about the rumor which defendant had heard, deceased apparently became enraged, his color changed, and he responded substantially as above set forth; that defendant then said that another physician had said the daughter's mental ailment was only temporary; that he did not know whether anything else was said or not; that deceased then hammered on the desk with something which defendant did not see, but which he thought was an instrument, and ordered defendant out of the office, and he, alarmed, instantly fled, and deceased pursued him. Dr. Broeker saw defendant as the shots were being fired; was within 10 or 15 feet of him at that time; could see his eyes, and testified that he, as a physician, regarded defendant as being "in a dazed condition." Another witness, also for the state, in describing defendant's appearance immediately after the shooting, said:
Defendant testified that when he reached the gutter on the opposite side of the street he drew his revolver and fired once in the ground, hoping thus to avert an assault; that deceased came at him again, and, believing himself in great danger and "afraid of his life," he fired the second shot; that he then stood there for a moment because he was "kind of dazed," and then surrendered himself to a policeman, Fleer, who had come up. Defendant admitted firing the shots; admitted carrying the revolver when he went to deceased's office, and gave as a reason for so doing that he was going to see some other people in the neighborhood, and, because of numerous crimes committed in that vicinity, he went armed for his own protection; that he had no ill intent when he went in to see deceased, but merely wanted to talk over with him the "awful statement," as he described it, that deceased, had made concerning his daughter.
He further testified that he "couldn't get mad, didn't get no chance to get mad; the whole conversation lasted only three or four minutes"; that he did not know whether deceased had anything in his hands immediately before the shooting or not. Concerning his acts and intentions when he fired the second shot, defendant testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Creighton
...the defendant's testimony as more or less decisive against manslaughter are: State v. Perno (Mo.), 23 S.W. (2d) 87, 91; State v. Stenzel (Mo.), 220 S.W. 882, 884; State v. Fletcher (Mo.), 190 S.W. l.c. 322; State v. Vest, 254 Mo. 458, 468, 162 S.W. 615, 620; State v. Gartrell, supra, 171 Mo......
-
State v. Creighton
...the defendant's testimony as more or less decisive against manslaughter are: State v. Perno (Mo.), 23 S.W.2d 87, 91; State v. Stenzel (Mo.), 220 S.W. 882, 884; State v. Fletcher (Mo.), 190 S.W. l. c. State v. Vest, 254 Mo. 458, 468, 162 S.W. 615, 620; State v. Gartrell, supra, 171 Mo. l. c.......
-
The State v. Burrell
...facts in this case distinguish it from State v. Butler, 247 Mo. 685, 153 S.W. 1042; State v. Foran, 255 Mo. 213, 164 S.W. 215; State v. Stenzel, 220 S.W. 882; State Allen, 290 Mo. 258, 234 S.W. 837; State v. Stewart, 278 Mo. 177, 212 S.W. 853; State v. Shuster, 183 S.W. 296; State v. Fletch......
-
State v. Mason
...the brief we will not hunt through the record for such errors. [State v. Whitsett, 232 Mo. 511, 530, 134 S.W. 555, 561; State v. Stenzel (Mo. Div. 2), 220 S.W. 882, 884; State v. Yates (Mo. Div. 2), 252 S.W. 641, State v. Judge, 315 Mo. 156, 163, 285 S.W. 718, 721; State v. Preslar, 316 Mo.......