State v. Tatman
| Decision Date | 23 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 18388.,18388. |
| Citation | 264 Mo. 357,175 S.W. 69 |
| Parties | STATE v. TATMAN |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
John Tatman, alias John Trainor, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
O. F. Wimmer and Ben T. Hardin, both of Kansas City, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and W. T. Rutherford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecuting attorney of Jackson county filed an information charging appellant and one Samuel Sherman with murder in the first degree in that they shot and killed one John Lynch April 30, 1913. A severance was granted, and appellant was tried, resulting in his conviction for murder in the first degree; his punishment being fixed at death. From this judgment he appealed to this court.
At about 11:30 o'clock p. m., April 30, 1913, John Lynch, a police officer of Kansas City, in full uniform, went into a drug store on the corner of Ninth street and Benton boulevard, in Kansas City, for a drink of water. Mr. Alexander, the druggist, gave him the water, and he sat down on a stool opposite the soda fountain, near the window, facing the street, to drink it. While the officer was thus occupied, appellant and his codefendant came across Benton boulevard from its east side to the middle of same and stopped in front of the drug store. From this point a clear view could be had of the interior of the store. When appellant and his codefendant stopped in the middle of the street, they were within the view of the officer and the druggist, and the former, upon seeing them, said, "I believe those are the men am looking for," and started after them. The two men in the meantime, evidently having seen the officer in the drug store, ran rapidly to Ninth and Benton streets, and then went west on Ninth street. About 125 feet from the drug store, they stopped, as the officer hallooed to them, saying, "Wait a minute, boys, want to see you." Alexander, the druggist, who had followed the officer to the door, was a witness to what occurred. When the officer arrived at the point where the two men were standing, he reached around under appellant's coat and took from his hip pocket a revolver. As he did this the shorter of the two men, Sherman, stepped back, drew a pistol, and fired at the officer. Several shots then followed in rapid succession. Immediately after the first shot, the druggist ran back to the money drawer, toots the cash therefrom, got a pistol, and returned to the door. Looking down Ninth street, he saw no one but the officer staggering about in a dazed way, his arms hanging limp by his sides. In a few minutes the officer returned to the drug store with a pistol it one of his hands, which he laid on the counter, saying: The pistol he laid on the counter proved afterwards to be the one he took from the appellant, and it had only one empty chamber. The officer rapidly became very weak, and blood gushed from his mouth and nostrils, covering the floor and furniture near where he fell. The druggist only saw one shot fired, but estimates that he heard seven or eight additional shots. A Mr. Kauffman, proprietor of a drug store in the same block as Alexander's, was sitting in his store when he heard the first shot lie ran to his front door, and as he did so another shot was fired. Reaching the front door he looked east on Ninth street and saw three men, one of them being Police Officer Lynch. The taller man, appellant, stood near the curb, while the officer stood or staggered about a short distance away. The druggist took in the situation and ran back to get his pistol. When he returned to the door, appellant was nearer the terrace, his codefendant was crouching behind a trolley pole or tree, and the officer was in about the same position as when the druggist first saw him, and as he staggered about his arms hung limp by his sides. Appellant was tiring at the officer as rapidly as the pistol could be discharged, with now and then a shot from his codefendant. As they shot, some one repeatedly hallooed, "Hold up your hands; hold up your hands." About 1½ minutes elapsed while this was happening, when appellant and his codefendant ceased shooting and ran rapidly west on Ninth street. As they passed witness' drug store, he fired three shots at them. A domestic in the employ of a family living near the scene had just returned home when she heard the first shot. She was standing near a window affording a view of Ninth street. She raised the window, and, looking out, saw appellant, Sherman, and the officer in the street near a gaslight about 50 feet away. Appellant was standing two or three feet from Sherman, his codefendant, and both were rapidly shooting at the officer, who was doing nothing in the way of shooting. Appellant's firing was more rapid and frequent than that of Sherman. When the shooting ceased, the two men ran west on Ninth street, and the officer, groaning as he staggered along, made his way back to Alexander's drug store. While this was occurring, a police sergeant, named Whalen, on duty on a nearby street, heard the shooting and ran in that direction, when he saw the two men running north from Ninth street along Bellefontaine. Whalen ran after them, and, covering them with his pistol, commanded them to stop and throw up their hands, which they did. Sherman had a pistol in his right hand, and was supporting the appellant, who had been shot in the foot, with his left. They surrendered their pistols to the officer. The one surrendered by appellant was shown to belong to Officer Lynch, whom they had shot, and appellant, in a statement made at police headquarters, stated that as Lynch took appellant's pistol he (appellant) wrenched Lynch's pistol from him, thus accounting for its possession. Whalen took appellant and Sherman to police headquarters. There were three empty chambers in Sherman's pistol and no loads in Lynch's pistol, which had been taken from appellant. The latter's statement was to this effect:
The life of the appellant stands forfeit for the satisfaction of the judgment. While we have heretofore set forth a formal statement of the facts, as shown by the testimony, something more is necessary, in justice to the appellant and, if it so appears, in justification of the rulings of the trial court.
If it be shown that there is any doubt of appellant's guilt, then any infraction of the well-established rules of criminal procedure, which may reasonably be held to be prejudicial, may well work a reversal; but if it appears that there is no doubt of guilt, and that a ruthless murder has been committed by the appellant, then only errors tending to prevent a fair and impartial trial, under the forms of the law, should be considered of sufficient magnitude to justify an interference with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tipton
...S. W. 1123; Elsea v. Smith 273 Mo. loc. cit. 409, 202 S. W. 1071; State v. Lewis, 264 Mo. loc. cit. 429, 175 S. W. 60; State v. Tatman, 264 Mo. loc. cit. 370, 175 S. W. 69; Breen v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis (Mo. Sup.) 204 S. W. loc. cit. 521-523; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 262 Mo. lo......
-
DeRousse v. West
... ... 690, 118 U.S. 356. The court judicially ... knows that defendants' line from St. Louis to Memphis via ... St. Marys is an interstate line. State v. Railroad, ... 212 Mo. 658, 111 S.W. 500; McIntosh v. Railroad, 168 ... S.W. 821; 15 Ruling Case Law sec. 48. (2) The error committed ... in ... ...
-
State v. Roseberry
...S.W.2d 69, 72(4); State v. Reagan, Mo., 108 S.W.2d 391, 397(16); State v. McGuire, 327 Mo. 1176, 39 S.W.2d 523, 527(18); State v. Tatman, 264 Mo. 357, 175 S.W. 69, 71(1). Thus, the giving of an erroneous instruction does not constitute reversible error if the jury is not misled thereby. Sta......
-
The State v. Tipton
... ... 831; Threadgill v ... United Rys. Co., 279 Mo. l. c. 473 and following, 214 ... S.W. 161; Heinbach v. Heinbach, 274 Mo. l. c. 315, ... 202 S.W. 1123; Elsea v. Smith, 273 Mo. l. c. 409, ... 202 S.W. 1071; State v. Lewis, 264 Mo. l. c. 429, ... 175 S.W. 60; State v. Tatman, 264 Mo. l. c. 370, 175 ... S.W. 69; Breen v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis, 204 ... S.W. l. c. 521-3; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 262 ... Mo. l. c. 634; State ex rel. v. Diemer, 255 Mo. l ... c. 346, 350.] ... III ... Aside from what is said in the preceding ... ...