State v. Wood
Decision Date | 03 November 1975 |
Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Billie Maxine WOOD, Appellant. 27597. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John W. Inglish, Carson, Inglish, Monaco & Coil, Jefferson City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SWOFFORD, P.J., and WELBORN and HIGGINS, Special Judges.
Billie Maxine Wood, charged with murder, second degree, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $500. Sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. , §§ 559.020, 559.070, 559.140, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The facts are stated by quotation from appellant's brief:
'Hershel Wood, the husband of the defendant, Billie Maxine Wood, * * * was in the service station business at Osage Beach, Missouri, in conjunction with which he operated a wrecker service. When he accumulated too many cars at the station, he would tow some to his home. The deceased, Paul Franklin Byrd, had wrecked his 1965 Ford Econoline Van on July 29, 1972, at which time it was towed to Hershel Wood's station and, sometime later, to Mr. Wood's home.
'On October 7, 1972, at about 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., the deceased and his brother, Daniel Max Byrd (Danny), went to the Wood home for the purpose of getting the Van. * * * Upon arrival at the Wood home, both the deceased and his brother got out of the car and the deceased went to the door of the house and knocked. Defendant and her daughter, Marilyn Sue Golden, were in the dining room drinking coffee. Defendant looked out the picture window and saw the deceased approaching. The deceased, a very large man, had long hair and a black beard. His appearance frightened defendant. She expressed her fear to her daughter and asked her to go to the door, but she went herself. The deceased told defendant he had come for the Van and she said she would have to call the station to see what the charges were against it. Defendant called her husband who said he would have to call the Shell station because he had written it down there and he would have to find out how many days storage to charge. Meanwhile, deceased and his brother had gone down toward the Van. Defendant then tried to call her son, Larry, who lived within walking distance of the Wood home, but the line was busy. She then sent Larry's six or seven year old son to get him. Defendant looked out the window and saw that deceased and his brother were hooking up the Van. She called Larry again, got through this time, and told him to 'get out here fast.' In the three or four minutes it took Larry to get there, defendant's husband had called back and told her the charge on the Van was $95.00. Defendant told Larry the charge was $95.00 on the Van.
'In the meanwhile, deceased and his brother, Danny, had backed his car up to the Van, opened the trunk of their car, taken out the tow bar and were in the process of hooking it up when Larry came down to where they were. On Larry's approach, deceased and his brother stood up and Larry said 'You better pay before you hook that up.' Deceased said, 'Pay what?' Larry said, 'For towing and storage.' Deceased asked, 'How much?' Lary said '$90.00' or '$95.00.' Deceased said, 'What for, just for a 5-mile towing bill?' and went back to work on the tow bar.
'At this point, there is a discrepancy in the testimony. Deceased's brother, Danny, testified that Larry took a tire tool out of the trunk of their car and swung at deceased, while Larry testified that after he had told them a couple of times to leave the Van there until he had paid the bill, deceased 'jumped' him. Larry also testified that he did not have anything in his hand at the time, but picked the tire tool up after deceased got off him. According to Danny's version, deceased grabbed Larry's arm that had the lug wrench in it and they started 'wrestling around' while, according to Larry, he was trying to get away from deceased when he fell over the car and that is when deceased pinned him down.
'Danny also testified that deceased may have had his hand on the lug wrench but, if so, it was in the process of trying ot get it away from Larry. He testified that he, Danny, never touched it. Danny also testified that at this point, Larry was trying to get away from deceased and deceased was trying to keep him from getting away so he wouldn't hit him. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martin
...up and sustained. This court is bound to follow the last controlling decision of our State Supreme Court on any issue, see State v. Wood, 531 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App.1975) and Mo.Const. Art. V, § In his point one, appellant alleges that conviction for armed criminal action, pursuant to § 559.225......
-
State v. Hegwood
...bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, Mo.Const. Art. 5, § 2. State v. Wood, 531 S.W.2d 543, 546(1) (Mo.App.1975). We must follow the rule in Richardson. The court did not err in failing to instruct on this Defendant also contends that the evidence w......
-
State v. Dixon, KCD
...submission of manslaughter when second degree murder is submitted is applicable in a direct evidence case. This court in State v. Wood, 531 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App.1975) fully discussed the applicability of the automatic submission of a manslaughter instruction in a direct evidence case. Further......