The State v. Baker
| Decision Date | 31 May 1898 |
| Citation | 46 S.W. 194,144 Mo. 323 |
| Parties | The State v. Baker, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. -- Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge.
Reversed and prisoner discharged.
Marshall & Franklin Brothers for appellant.
(1) The evidence in this case is wholly insufficient to sustain a conviction under the indictment or any of the counts thereof. State v. Fox, 136 Mo. 139, and cases cited. (2) The purpose for which the body of deceased Mary J. Williamson was disinterred must be shown as clearly as any other material fact proven in evidence and this the State wholly fails to do. (3) The general verdict of the jury in this case without specifying on which of the three counts they base their finding is too indefinite to base a judgment, and the court should have set it aside, if there were no other errors appearing in the whole record. State v. Pierce, 136 Mo. 34; State v. Hecox, 83 Mo. 531; State v Hudson, 137 Mo. 618; State v. Hutchison, 111 Mo. 257; State v. Karlowski, 142 Mo. 463.
Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) Evidence that a body is disinterred secretly during the night time and concealed tends to show that the disinterment was for an unlawful purpose. State v. Pugsley, 75 Iowa 742; 2 McClain's Crim. Law, sec. 1167. (2) Proof of any number of facts and circumstances consistent with the truth of the statements which have led to the discovery, and which would not probably have existed had the crime not been committed, necessarily corroborates statements or confessions of defendant, and increases the probability of their truth. 17 Ill. 426; Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 118. (3) Very slight corroborating circumstances have been held sufficient to sustain a conviction where a confession or admission of the crime has been made. State v. Robinson, 12 Mo. 592; State v. German, 54 Mo. 526; State v Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 117. (4) The evidence may not be sufficient to produce in the minds of the jury an absolute certainty of defendant's guilt, nor to prove that he had any motive to commit the crime charged, and yet be strong enough to satisfy the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty. 45 Ala. 66; Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 307. (5) Intention, deliberation and premeditation are operations of the mind, and their existence must be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case. The inference of intention is a fact only for the jury. 44 Tex. 473; 35 Hun. 295; Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 52. (6) Direct proof of intention is not required nor can it be obtned. Intention may be inferred from what the party does and says, and from all the circumstances and acts accompanying the crime. People v. Walwroth, 4 N. Y. Cr. R. 355; Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 53; Culbertson v. Hill, 87 Mo. 553; 79 Mo. 509. (7) When an act is of such a nature as not necessarily to imply guilty intention, and such intention is the specific point in issue, then the evidence of declarations by the party or of collateral statements made are of the highest importance as evidence of his motives and purposes. Wells on Cir. Ev., pp. 53 and 54; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113. (8) Identification is often satisfactorily inferred by the correspondence of fragments of garments either found in the possession of the party charged with the crime or discovered at or near the scene of the crime or otherwise related to the corpus delicti. Wills on Cir. Ev., p. 186. (9) The rule is that a general finding of guilty on an indictment containing several counts relating to the same offense is sufficient without specifying the count on which the verdict is based. State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542; State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 558; State v. Nicholson, 56 Mo.App. 412; State v. McDonald, 85 Mo. 539. (10) Verdict will not be disturbed when inference of guilt can be reasonably drawn from the evidence, and in such cases the Supreme Court will not interfere with a verdict on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support it. State v. Banks, 118 Mo. 117; State v. Jackson, 106 Mo. 174; State v. Fisher, 124 Mo. 460; State v. Perry, 136 Mo. 126.
This is a prosecution originating in Putnam county, Missouri. The indictment, omitting formal parts, contained three counts as follows:
First count. "That one Ira Baker, on the day of April, A. D., 1895, at the said county of Putnam, State of Missouri, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously dig up, disinter and remove the dead body and the remains of a human being, to wit, the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson, deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred and then and there was, for the purpose of selling the dead body and remains, against the peace and dignity of the State."
Second count. "That one Ira Baker, on the day of April, 1895, at the county of Putnam, State of Missouri, did then and there willfully and feloniously dig up, disinter and remove the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred and then and there was, for the purpose of dissecting the said body and remains, against, etc."
Third count. "That one Ira Baker, on the day of April, 1895, at the county of Putnam, State of Missouri, did then there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously dig up, disinter and remove the dead body and remains of one Mary J. Williamson, deceased, from the grave in which the said body and remains had then before been interred and then and there was, for the purpose of surgical and anatomical experiment and preparation of the said body and remains, against, etc."
At the September term of said court, 1897, the defendant was put on trial and the jury brought in a general verdict, finding the defendant guilty and assessing his punishment at a term of two years in the penitentiary. Defendant assigns three grounds of error for reversal.
I. The first and the substantial assignment is that the sentence should be reversed because there was a total failure of proof to show a violation of the criminal law under either of the counts in the indictment. The burden of the evidence was that defendant lived at Lemon Station, in Putnam county, and was operating a brickyard some distance from his house; that one Dr. Chapman also lived in the same village; that he and defendant were quite good friends; that Chapman was much addicted to intoxication and defendant often took him to his home and that on one occasion the doctor had injured defendant by striking him in the side. Kennedy, the witness upon whom the State relies to sustain this conviction, was a half-brother of Dr. Chapman. Defendant had a claim against the estate of Chapman and this aroused the resentment of Kennedy and he preferred this charge. His story is this, that one night a few days prior to the day he named for the commission of the offense he visited Chapman and they slept in the same room that night. From that room the cemetery and defendant's brickyard were visible. About midnight an electrical storm occurred and by the flashes of lightning a form of some one was revealed to Dr Chapman, who called Kennedy's attention to it. Chapman died before the trial of this case. The morning...
To continue reading
Request your trial