State v. Sumpter

• Decision Date: 23 January 1900
• Citation: 55 S.W. 76,153 Mo. 436
• Parties: STATE v. SUMPTER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

55 S.W. 76

153 Mo. 436

STATE v. SUMPTER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 23, 1900.

MURDER — CRIMINAL LAW — WITNESSES — EVIDENCE.

1. Defendant had been paying attention to deceased's daughter, contrary to his wishes, and had followed deceased and his family to church,

and accompanied the daughter into the building. On the way home, defendant made the remark that he intended to "get deceased before night." Next morning defendant went to deceased's home, and, while conversing with the daughter and her mother, the mother asked him if he had threatened to kill deceased, and, if he had done so, he must go down to the field where deceased was, and talk nice to him; that, if he would, it would make it all right. Thereupon defendant started, saying, "I have got a pistol," and a permit to carry it. On going up to deceased, he said, "Hello, Eli;" but deceased made no reply. After going about 10 feet further, defendant said, "Didn't I tell you I was going to kill you?" At this deceased started towards defendant, who fired twice, killing deceased. Defendant pleaded self-defense, stating deceased started towards him with an ax, when he killed him to save himself. The evidence outside of that of defendant made out a clear case of murder in the first degree. Held, that an instruction on manslaughter in the fourth degree was properly refused.

2. Where the record fails to show an order excluding witnesses from the court room, an alleged error, that a witness was permitted to testify after having remained in the court room in violation of an order of the trial court, is not reviewable.

3. Evidence will not be excluded because a witness remained in the court room after an order of the court directing all witnesses to withdraw until called, where it does not appear that such act of the witness was with the connivance of the party calling him.

Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; John A. Hockaday, Judge.

Jode Sumpter was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Barton & Talbot, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

Jode Sumpter, the defendant, was indicted for murder in the first degree, by shooting to death, with a pistol, Eli Hursman. The circumstances attendant on the sad affair are sufficiently set forth in the statement made on behalf of the state: Eli Hursman was a farmer living in Howard county, this state. His family consisted of himself, his wife, and several daughters and sons. The defendant had for some time past been working for him, with the exception of three weeks immediately prior to the homicide. He was exceedingly intimate with the family of Hursman, and always alluded to him as "Daddy" when talking of or concerning him. For some time past, it appears, he had been paying attention to one of the daughters of the deceased, which did not meet with Hursman's approbation. On this account he was discharged from the employment of Hursman, and commenced working for a neighbor near by. On Sunday morning of the 8th day of May, Hursman, with his family, attended church at Newhope, not far distant from his residence, defendant following on horseback. On arriving at the church, defendant accompanied Hursman's daughter into the building, where they remained until after services. He was requested by the mother of the young lady not to do so, as it would cause trouble between him and her husband; besides, the young lady, knowing that her father did not desire her to associate herself with defendant, made herself liable to chastisement by him. On the road home defendant made the remark that he intended to get Hursman before night. This remark was induced on account of the...