State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 08 May 1894 |
| Citation | 26 S.W. 339,121 Mo. 399 |
| Parties | The State v. Williams, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. -- Hon. C. C. Bland, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Jamison & Crites for appellant.
(1) The appellant offers the following authorities on the objectionable evidence admitted by the trial court. It is error to permit the state to give evidence of other acts committed at other times, upon other persons. State v Turner, 76 Mo. 350; State v. Reavis, 71 Mo 420; State v. Greenwade, 72 Mo. 299; State v. Reed, 85 Mo. 194. (2) Remarks prejudicial to the defendant's cause should not be permitted to pass unrebuked by the court when made in argument by the state's attorney before the jury. State v. King, 64 Mo. 591; State v. Lee, 66 Mo. 165; State v. Barham, 82 Mo. 67; State v. Graves, 95 Mo. 510; State v. Young, 99 Mo. 666; Gibson v. Zeibig, 24 Mo.App. 65.
R. F. Walker, Attorney General, and Morton Jourdan, Assistant Attorney General, for the state.
(1) Appellant assigns as one reason for reversal that the verdict is contrary to the law and against the weight of the evidence. This court will not undertake to weigh the evidence or determine the question of defendant's guilt or innocence. So often has this court affirmed this doctrine that we deem it unnecessary to cite the authorities. (2) Where no exceptions are saved to the action of the trial court in ruling upon objections to remarks of counsel, the supreme court will not review such action. (3) Where no objection is made nor exception saved to the admission of testimony, the appellate court will not review the point. State v. Foster, 115 Mo. 448. Where objectionable testimony is elicited by the party complaining, the error, can not be taken advantage of on appeal. (4) The appellant complains of the action of the trial court in refusing to withdraw by instruction from the consideration of the jury the testimony of Maud Porter, detailing her visits to the defendant and his letters to her; although the daughter of the prosecuting witness, Maud was the first witness sworn for the defendant, and testified to a state of facts, which, if believed by the jury, were sufficient to have warranted them in acquitting the defendant. Her position was hostile to the state, and the state had the right to show her interest and feeling in the matter -- her animosity for the prosecution and her preference for the defendant -- for the one purpose, if no other, of impeaching her testimony. This was all the state did, and was the object of the cross-examination, and the court committed no error in refusing the instructions asked.
Defendant was convicted of assault upon one George Porter, with a pistol, with intent to kill, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary. From the judgment and sentence he appeals.
At the time of the difficulty, the defendant and Porter were neighbors living on adjoining lots in the town of Rolla. Porter's sixteen year old daughter, Maud, had been staying at the defendant's about one week and her father wanted her to come home as he seemed to think that defendant had some improper motive in keeping her there; had heard that defendant had bought her a trunk, which was proved to be true, and that he had said that he was going to send her off and then follow her. Maud did not want to go home but her father compelled her to do so. A day or two before the assault, defendant and Porter had some worded controversy over the girl. Defendant had, also, gone to Steelville and written her a letter from there. While Maud was staying at defendant's, he was living with a woman whom he claimed as his wife.
After the first controversy between the parties, defendant procured a pistol and some cartridges for it. At the time Porter took his daughter home from Williams' house, about the time he reached home with her, defendant came out of his house with a monkey wrench in his hand, picked up a couple of rocks and began cursing Porter. Porter and daughter went into the house and in a short time, when the family were at supper, the defendant went over and into the house, with a pistol in his hand, and began cursing and abusing Porter, when Porter's wife shut the door between the room in which the family were and the one in which the defendant was standing; defendant then ran out of doors and to a window of the dining room in which the prosecuting witness and family were, and pointed a pistol at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Goddard
...This evidence was not legitimate rebuttal and tended to prove no legitimate issue in the case, and it is rank hearsay testimony. State v. Williams, 121 Mo. 399. (8) If are wrong in our contention that the judgment dismissing said case in Cass county was a bar to any other proceeding, then J......