State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 06 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 19719.,19719.
• Parties: STATE v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

190 S.W. 330

STATE v. TAYLOR.

No. 19719.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 6, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; W. S. C. Walker, Judge.

Sam Taylor was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

R. L. Ward, of Caruthersville, and Val. Perkins, of Lilbourn, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Shrader P. Howell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, J.

The defendant, in an information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Pemiscot county, was charged jointly with a woman named Iva Bumpass with murder in the first degree in having killed the defendant's wife by administering poison to her on December 11, 1914. There was a severance, and upon a trial of the defendant, he was convicted as charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. From that judgment he appeals.

The evidence is largely circumstantial. The defendant was a common laborer living on a farm with his wife and two children near Portageville in Pemiscot county. With them lived the young woman Iva Bumpass, the codefendant. The nature of the latter's relations with the defendant excited the suspicions of the wife to such an extent that she spoke about it to persons living in the vicinity and the matter was a subject of scandal in the neighborhood. This only in passing, as presenting a cause deducible from the evidence of the crime. It was the custom of the defendant, the young woman, and others to pick cotton in its season for neighboring planters. While thus engaged about two weeks before the wife's death, the young woman was heard to say to the defendant, "You have got to get rid of your wife or of me." To which defendant replied, "I will do whatever you say."

The wife's illness began on Sunday, December 6, 1914. The next day the father of the defendant called in a Dr. Phillips to prescribe for her. The doctor pronounced her illness follicular tonsilitis and pneumonia, gave her some medicine, and directed the defendant to call at his office the next day and report the condition of the patient. The defendant did not do this, and the physician did not again see the woman. The day the doctor called, a witness named Pavy met defendant in Portageville, and the latter spoke to him about some poison, said he wanted some to kill a dog, and asked what was good, arsenic or strychnine. The witness told him either would kill, but advised him to get a gun and shoot the dog. Defendant said a dog had jumped into his back window and had taken some meat, but he did not want to shoot him because that would get blood on the floor and he did not want it known that he had killed it. Defendant left the witness and went into a drug store owned by a Dr. Hollenbeck in Portageville. Homer Hollenbeck, the doctor's son, testified that he saw his father sell some strychnine to the defendant on December 9th, which defendant said he wanted for the purpose of killing a dog. Witness further testified that on December 12th, the day the defendant's wife died, but prior to that occurrence, defendant came to the drug store and said, "Doc, the poison I got here the other day did not kill that dog at all." To which the doctor replied, "The wrong dog must have gotten it." Defendant then bought 20 grains of bichloride of mercury. A boy named Helton was present when this took place, saw the defendant, and heard the conversation, which he details substantially as testified to by Homer Hollenbeck. Dr. Hollenbeck's testimony corroborates that of his son. He stated that when defendant came to his drug store on December 9th he sold him two dozen strychnine tablets. Later, on December 12th, the day the defendant's wife died, defendant again came to the store and said he wanted a stronger poison, that the other had failed, and witness then sold him 20 grains of bichloride of mercury. This was some time before the noon hour. The wife died at 5 o'clock that evening.

Three neighbor women nursed the wife from the beginning of her illness on December 6th to her death on the 12th, relieving each other at intervals. They testify that she said she believed she was going to die; that the medicine given to her by her husband was going to kill her. They described her condition, as shown by observation and from her statements and expressions of pain. She complained of her mouth and throat burning and of internal agony. These conditions continued to increase in intensity from the beginning of her attack until she died. The Bumpass girl did not testify. Defendant on the stand denied that he talked to the witness Pavy about poisoning a dog and that he bought no poison from Dr. Hollenbeck on either of the occasions stated by that witness and his son; that he never had any conversation in the cotton field with the Bumpass girl testified to by witnesses.

A witness named Ellis testified in rebuttal that he heard defendant's father say to the latter in the witness' presence at the coroner's inquest that he (the father) was going to send for Dr. Rhodes. The defendant asked him, "Why?" to which the father replied:

"You know why. You have poisoned this woman, and I am going to spend every cent I have to convict you for it."

To this statement it does not appear that witness made any reply.

I. Timely Trial. — Defendant moved to be discharged because he was not brought to trial before the end of the second term after the filing of the information against him, as provided in section 5246, R. S. 1909. At the time of the filing of this information, Pemiscot county had three regular terms of circuit court during each year, viz. in the months of February, July, and November. Laws Mo. 1913, p. 215. The defendant was informed against on January 20, 1915, or during the November term, 1914, of the Pemiscot circuit court. The case was continued on the state's application at this term and at the succeeding February term. At the July term the case was continued on the court's own motion until August 16, 1915, which was a part of the July term, when it was tried. In construing the statute, the term at which the indictment is found or the information filed is not to be included. State v. Riddle, 179 Mo. 287, 78 S. W. 606. There was, it is true, two subsequent continuances, one at the February term and another at the July term; but the latter was not a continuance beyond the second term, but to a day certain within same, when the trial was had. Defendant therefore was not authorized to invoke the statute, and his motion was properly overruled.

II. Information. — It is contended that the information is defective in failing to allege "that the defendant deliberately, premeditatedly, and of malice aforethought contrived and intended that the said poison should be taken and received into the body of the said Victola Taylor." The language of the information indicated by the matter quoted, so far as same relates to the objection made, is as follows:

First. That the defendant "then and there wickedly contriving and intending one Victola Taylor to deprive her of her life, and then and there feloniously contriving and intending her, the said Victola Taylor, willfully, feloniously, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose, and of their malice aforethought, to kill and murder."

Second. "Did then and there willfully, feloniously, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose, and of their malice aforethought, administer and give to, and cause to be administered and given to her, the said Victola Taylor, certain deadly drugs and poisonous substances, etc."

Third. "The said Sam Taylor and Iva Bumpass then and there wickedly, willfully, and feloniously contriving and intending the said strychnine and bichloride of mercury and other deadly drugs and poisonous substances, then and there to be taken and received into her...