State v. Sumpter
| Decision Date | 05 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 39193 |
| Citation | 184 S.W.2d 1005 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald Sumpter, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
From the Circuit Court of Washington County Criminal Appeal Edward T. Eversole, Judge
Reversed and remanded
Donald Sumpter was convicted of manslaughter by means of culpable negligence in the operation of an automobile and fined $500. Sec. 4382, R.S. 1939. He appeals. The issues raised go to the submissibility of the State's case, the admissibility of certain evidence, and the refusal of an instruction on excusable homicide by reason of an accident (Sec. 4380 Id.)
Richard Rulo (the deceased) and Leonard Rulo, his brother, were walking west on State Highway No. 12, three-quarters of a mile west of Cadet, Washington county, Missouri, July 15 1942, about dusk. They were walking abreast, within 3 feet of the south ditch along the highway, Richard Rulo being next to the ditch and Leonard just to the right of him. The highway was about 26 feet wide from ditch to ditch and the usually traveled portion was estimated at 14 feet in width. Leonard heard an automobile approaching, looked around and saw defendant's automobile, with its lights on, about 30 yeards away and proceeding west on the south (the wrong) side of the highway at an estimated speed of 40 miles an hour. Leonard looked back west; then he looked east again and immediately jumped aside into the ditch, starting to halloo to Richard but did not have time. Defendant's automobile struck Richard before he could do anything, knocked him 19 feet and caused his death within a few minutes. The automobile then went to the north side of the road and across the north ditch. Defendant came to where Richard was, said he was sorry, that he saw Leonard but did not see Richard. Leonard had on light clothes and Richard had on dark clothes, but under the State's evidence both were plainly visible. G. C. Long, driving his automobile east, met and passed the two brothers immediately before the accident. About a quarter of a mile farther east he met defendant's automobile, which was on the south or wrong side of the highway and caused Long to operate his automobile with its south wheels in the ditch to avoid being struck.
Defendant's argument on no case made is based upon Richard being struck near the center of the highway and on defendant having a right to assume no person would be walking there. This is so contrary to the facts of the State's case that it is self-evident defendant's argument failes to establish error. A car going east met and passed the Rulo brothers and the operator testified that although he pulled over to the north such movement was unnecessary. Defendant had his, the north, as well as sufficient space on the south side of the highway to pass without striking Richard Rulo. The case was for the jury. State v. Studebaker, 334 Mo. 471, 482(II), 66 S.W.2d 877, 832[5]; State v. Renfro (Mo.) 279 S.W. 702, 704; State v. Weisman (Mo.), 256 S.W. 740, 741[1].
Defendant's contention that the testimony of Mr. Long with respect to defendant crowding him to the ditch was inadmissible is without merit. This occurred just a few seconds prior to and about one-quarter of a mile from the death scene. It should have warned defendant that he was operating his automobile in a manner incompatible with a proper regard for human life was displaying a careless and reckless disregard for human life and limb and was endangering life, a result he presently consummated. It tended to establish defendant's reckless and careless state of...
To continue reading
Request your trial