State v. Williamson
| Decision Date | 31 March 1852 |
| Citation | 16 Mo. 394 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. WILLIAMSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. A. was indicted for an assault upon B. with intent to kill. A. had previously written an obscene letter about his own wife, the mother-in-law of B., out of which the affray originated, in which A. was first attacked. Held, this letter was inadmissible as evidence against A.
2. On a charge of assault with intent to kill, an instruction which so defines the crime as to exclude all consideration whether the assault was committed under circumstances of provocation, or in self defense, is erroneous.
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Blennerhassett & Shreve, for appellant.
1. The appellant insists that the court below erroneously admitted a letter, purporting to have been written by the defendant to a third person, in evidence before the jury. This letter formed no part of the case, and nothing in it was material to the trial of the defendant. It was calculated to prejudice the jury against the defendant, and was considered so revoling in its terms and character that the jury retired to read it.
2. The first instruction given for the State by the court is erroneous. By the very language of this instruction all defense is taken from the consideration of the jury, and they are authorized to find defendant guilty, if he shot with intent to kill, even though the witness, Dorsheimer, were attempting to take the life of the defendant when the latter shot.
The last instruction asked by defendant, and refused, ought to have been given. The court erred in refusing a new trial upon the facts in this case and the law. The entire evidence shows a case of self-defense, and the party was convicted under excitement, the result of the admission of scandalous and irrelevant matter.
Lackland, for State.
The court did not err in admitting the letter in evidence. It was competent to show the position of the witness, Dorsheimer, to explain the reason why Dorsheimer went to the door to speak to defendant, and why Dorsheimer should tell him it was necessary for him to seek other lodgings.
The letter is shown to the defendant at the door, when and where a conversation is had concerning its contents. The difficulty originated in regard to the contents of the letter. The letter, therefore, and its contents, are a part of the res gestæ.
The court did not err in permitting the jury to retire into the jury room and there read the letter to themselves. The obscenity of its contents is a sufficient reason for the action of the court. The defendant consented that the jury might retire and read the letter to themselves. Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the letter was irrelevant, and for that reason was incompetent, this is no reason why a new trial should have been granted in this case.
The guilt of defendant, as charged in second count of the indictment, was clearly established by proof in the cause, other than the letter. “The mere admission of objectionable evidence will not be a sufficient cause for sending a case back for a new trial, when the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict without the objectionable testimony.” Stephens v. Crawford, 1 Kelly, 574, 580; State v. Engle, 1 Zabriskie (N. J.) Rep. 347; State v. Ford, 3 Strobh. (S. C.) Rep. 517, 526, note.
There is no error in the instructions given. They put the jury in possession of the law applicable to the case. The instructions refused were bad, and the court ought to have refused them.
The first and third instructions refused are wrong, for the reason that they assume that if defendant shot, while in a heat of passion, he must be acquitted. Malice is no ingredient of the offense charged in the second count of the indictment. If malice be wanting, the offense charged in the first count has not been committed, and so the court, in the instruction given, inform the jury.
H. Dusenbury, for State, cites Foster, 290, 291, 294; 1 Russell, 435 (note); 1 Haw. P. C. ch. 62, sec. 1; Ros. Crim. Ev. 260; 2 Ld. Ray. 1498; 1 Hale, 453; 2 Stark. Ev. 517; 4 Black. Com. 185.
The defendant was indicted for an assault on one Lewis Dorsheimer, with intent to kill. The first count charges the assault to have been made feloniously and willfully, on purpose and of malice aforethought, by shooting at him, the said Dorsheimer, with a pistol, with intent to kill him.
The second count charges the assault and the shooting to have been made feloniously and willfully, with the intent willfully and feloniously to kill said Dorsheimer.
The defendant plead not guilty. The jury found him guilty on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Zorn
... ... court erred in giving instruction 4 of the first series of ... instructions, in improperly defining murder in the second ... degree. State v. Phelps, 76 Mo. 319; State v ... Mitchell, 98 Mo. 657; State v. Elliott, 98 Mo ... 150; State v. Evans, 124 Mo. 411; State v ... Williamson, 16 Mo. 394; State v. Kotobsky, 74 ... Mo. 247. (4) The dying declaration should not have been ... admitted in evidence, as it does not appear that deceased ... thought that he was in extremis at the time he made the ... declaration, and it is shown by the testimony that he had not ... ...
-
State v. Kilgore
...319; State v. Heed, 57 Mo. 253; Jackson v. Bowles, 67 Mo. 609; Crews v. Lackland, 67 Mo. 619; Seymour v. Seymour, 67 Mo. 303; State v. Williamson, 16 Mo. 394; Clark v. Hammerle, 27 Mo. 55. 4. The second instruction is erroneous, in that it places deliberation and premeditation upon the same......
-
State v. McDonald
...make out its case affirmatively, or the defendant must be acquitted. State v. McBride, 19 Mo. 239; State v. Stewart, 29 Mo. 419 ;State v. Williamson, 16 Mo. 394.J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State. 1. Although the indictment was insufficient under the 29th section, yet it was suffi......
-
State v. Leach
...of learned counsel for appellant in his attack upon this instruction. One of the cases cited in support of this contention is State v. Williamson, 16 Mo. 394. All that is there said about the instructions is that they do not put the case fairly to the jury. State v. Young, 36 Mo. App. 517, ......