State v. Wooley

• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Citation: 115 S.W. 417,215 Mo. 620
• Parties: STATE v. WOOLEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

115 S.W. 417

215 Mo. 620

STATE v. WOOLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 15, 1908.

1. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 535)—EVIDENCE—CONFESSIONS—CORPUS DELICTI.

A conviction of murder is not invalid as based solely on an extrajudicial confession, where the death was not disputed and several reputable physicians testified that decedent died of violent injuries to her person.

2. HOMICIDE (§ 284)—EVIDENCE—CORPUS DELICTI.

Evidence held sufficient to warrant submission to the jury of the corpus delicti in an infanticide case.

3. JURY (§ 108) — COMPETENCY — SCRUPLES AGAINST PUNISHMENT.

Jurors who stated that they had conscientious scruples against returning a verdict where the penalty might be death were properly excused in a murder trial; they not being qualified by Rev. St. 1899, § 1817 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1262), permitting the jury to fix punishment for murder in the first degree at death or life imprisonment.

4. JURY (§ 131) — QUALIFICATIONS — EXAMINATION BY COURT.

The court in a murder trial can by appropriate examination test the qualification of jurors.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1043)—PRESENTATION OF QUESTIONS IN TRIAL COURT — CHALLENGES TO JURORS—SUFFICIENCY.

A general challenge of a juror for cause, without statement of the ground thereof, is insufficient to present any question for review in the Supreme Court.

6. JURY (§ 103) — QUALIFICATIONS—EXPRESSION OF OPINION—EFFECT.

Jurors were not disqualified because they had formed or expressed opinions respecting accused's guilt, based upon newspaper reports and published extracts from confessions by him and his wife, where they stated that such opinions would not prevent them from fairly trying the case.

7. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1090)—APPEAL—RECORD —MOTION TO QUASH.

A motion to quash an information or indictment is not part of the record proper, and hence, to preserve it and the ruling thereon for review, they must be embodied in the bill of exceptions, unless the information or indictment fails to charge an offense.

8. HOMICIDE (§ 127) — INDICTMENT — SUFFICIENCY.

An indictment for homicide held sufficient.

9. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 829)—INSTRUCTIONS— REFUSAL PROPER.

Where instructions given fully cover the case, the refusal of other instructions is not error.

10. HOMICIDE (§ 307)— EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence held not to authorize submission of degrees of homicide less than murder in the first degree.

11. HOMICIDE (§ 42)—PROVOCATION—MALICE.

A homicide resulting from assault is murder, notwithstanding provocation, where the assault is beyond all proportion to the provocation and outrageous in its nature, either in the manner or the continuance of it.

12. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 784)—CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—INSTRUCTIONS.

Where the evidence on which a conviction depends consists of circumstantial evidence alone, it is error to refuse to instruct on circumstantial evidence.

13. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 784)—CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE—INSTRUCTIONS.

In a murder trial it was unnecessary to instruct on circumstantial evidence, where decedent's death, the character of the injuries, and accused's confession were shown by direct evidence.

14. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 519) — CONFESSIONS— ADMISSIBILITY.

A confession obtained by improper inducements, such as promise of immunity or reward, or by violence or threats, is inadmissible.

15. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 519) — CONFESSIONS— QUESTIONS BY OFFICERS.

That a confession was made while accused was in custody, and that questions were propounded to him, does not affect its admissibility, in the absence of improper inducements.

16. WITNESSES (§ 52) — COMPETENCY — HUSBAND AND WIFE.

A wife is not a competent witness against her husband in a criminal case.

17. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 410)—EVIDENCE—DECLARATION BY WIFE.

A written statement made by the wife of one accused of murder concerning the death was admissible against him, where it was made in the presence of him and officers, and he stated that it was true excepting as to one or two immaterial matters.

18. HOMICIDE (§ 253) — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence held to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree.

19. HOMICIDE (§ 282)—JURY QUESTION.

Whether accused was guilty of murder in the first degree held, under the evidence, a jury question.

20. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 742) — PROVINCE OF JURY.

The jury in a criminal case are the judges of the credibility of witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony.

21. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1159) — APPEAL — REVIEW— VERDICT—CONCLUSIVENESS.

A conviction substantially supported by evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, though the evidence be conflicting.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Buchanan County; Alonzo D. Burnes, Judge.

John Wooley was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is now pending in this court upon an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the criminal court of Buchanan county for murder in the first degree. At the March term, 1907, of the criminal court of Buchanan county, an indictment was returned by the grand jury, charging the defendant, John Wooley, with the murder of his stepchild, Pearl Smith. Anna Wooley, wife of the defendant, John Wooley, was charged in the indictment as an accessory before the fact. The charge upon which the judgment in this cause is predicated is thus made by the indictment returned by the grand jury:

"State of Missouri, County of Buchanan— ss.: In the Criminal Court of Buchanan County, at the March Term, thereof, 1907. The grand jurors of the state of Missouri, within and for the body of the county of Buchanan aforesaid, being duly empaneled and sworn, upon their oaths, do present that John Wooley on or about the 2d day of February, 1907, at the county of Buchanan and state aforesaid, in and upon one Pearl Smith, then and there being, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and with his two hands and clenched fists, her the said Pearl Smith, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of his malice aforethought did slap, strike, beat and hit in and upon the face, head, breast and body of her the said Pearl Smith, and with his two hands, her the said Pearl Smith, feloniously, wilfully, premeditatedly and of his malice aforethought did seize and take up and knock, cast, throw and hurl the body, face and head of her the said Pearl Smith, with great force and brute violence, down upon the hard wooden floor then and there being, giving to the said Pearl Smith, then and there with the hands and fists aforesaid and by the knocking, casting, throwing and hurling against the wooden floor aforesaid, in and upon the face, head and body of her the said Pearl Smith, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of his malice aforethought, mortal wounds and bruises, of which said mortal wounds and bruises the said Pearl Smith from the second day of February, 1907, until the sixth day of February, 1907, in Buchanan county aforesaid, did languish and languishing did live, on which said sixth day of February of the year aforesaid, of the mortal wounds and bruises aforesaid, the said Pearl Smith died; and so the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say, that the said John Wooley, her, the said Pearl Smith, in the manner and by the means aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder. And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present and charge that Anna Wooley, before the said felony and murder was committed in the manner and form aforesaid, and by the means aforesaid, at the time and place aforesaid then and there being, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of her malice aforethought counsel, aid and abet and comfort and maintain him the said John Wooley, the said felony and murder aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid and by the means aforesaid, at the time and place aforesaid, to do and commit; and the grand jurors aforesaid upon their oaths aforesaid do say that John Wooley and Anna Wooley, her the said Pearl Smith at the time and place aforesaid in the manner and by the means aforesaid, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of her malice aforethought, did kill and murder, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the state. Charles F. Keller, Prosecuting Attorney. A True Bill. J. C. Wyatt, Foreman."

At said March term, 1907, of said court the defendant, John Wooley, filed his application for a change of venue on the ground of the bias and prejudice of the regular judge of said court against him, which application was sustained by the court, and Hon. Alonzo D. Burnes, judge of the Fifth judicial circuit, was called as special judge to try the cause. At the June term, 1907, of said court, before the said special judge, the defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment, which motion was overruled by the court, whereupon the defendant was duly arrainged and entered his plea of not guilty. After said arraingment at the June term, as before stated, the defendant was put upon his trial.

The testimony on the part of the state developed at the trial tended to establish substantially the following state of facts: That the defendant, John Wooley, at the time of the alleged homicide, was a farmer and laborer, about 28 years of age, and had resided in Buchanan county, Mo., almost all his life. He was married to Mrs. Anna Smith at St. Joseph in said county on the ____ day of October, 1906. He had one child, a daughter, by a former marriage. His wife, Anna Wooley, had formerly been married to a man named Smith, and Pearl Smith, the deceased, was a daughter by such marriage. At the time of his marriage to Anna Smith, the defendant was working in a packing house in St. Joseph, and Anna Wooley, before her marriage, was working out...