The State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 23 April 1901
• Citation: 62 S.W. 692,162 Mo. 253
• Parties: THE STATE v. MILLER, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 S.W. 692

162 Mo. 253

THE STATE v. MILLER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

April 23, 1901

Appeal from Holt Circuit Court. -- Hon. Gallatin Craig, Judge.

Reversed.

J. W Stokes and G. W. Murphy for appellant.

In order to hold the wife as guilty in a prosecution of this kind the State was bound to show that the wife acted independently and was not coerced by the husband. The plan must have originated with her, and she must have been the responsible actor, not the servant of her husband's will. The law recognizes the relation of husband and wife and both the legal duties of the wife and the natural and usual influence exercised by the husband as well as the disposition of the wife to assist and obey the husband. These presumptions and considerations in her favor must be overcome by evidence showing a different condition, and that the act was voluntary on her part. 1 Bishop, Crim. Law, art. 359 sec. 3; Commonwealth v. Daley, 18 N.E. 579; State v. Williams, 65 N.C. 398. The defendant and her husband were together when the procurement of the weapon was planned. The request and influence which lead to its procurement proceeded from the husband. The influence of the husband over his wife was only strengthened by the farther incitement of her brothers. The pistol was procured by them and given to her in furtherance of the plan. She, still acting under his influence, conveyed the weapon into the jail and delivered it to her husband at his request and in completion of his design. The coercion was complete, unless the State should have shown acts or circumstances inconsistent with this view, which it never attempted to do.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

Coverture is no protection to a married woman when she is shown to have taken an active and willing part in the commission of a crime. Commonwealth v. Gormley, 133 Mass. 580. The evidence shows defendant to have been in the habit of visiting her husband at the jail. He had been in custody for several months, and save as to the few moments spent in visiting him, can not be said to have been in a position to use much coercion upon her. She had no reason to act at his request through fear, as he was held in custody with no prospect of being released. In fact the same opportunity to coercion did not present itself as in cases where the principle is fully applied. When she was out of his presence it can not be said she was acting under his coercion, or in duress or fear. When these facts are considered in the light of the principle that "coverture is no protection to a married woman when she is shown to have taken an active and willing part in the commission of a crime," there can be no question as to her guilt. Com. v. Gormley, supra. It is true, under the rule followed in this State, an offense committed by a married woman, in the presence of her husband, is presumed to have been committed under his coercion, which would relieve her of liability. This presumption, however, is rebuttable. Smith v. Schoene, 67 Mo.App. 604; State v. Ma Foo, 110 Mo. 7; Com. v. Uhl, 6 Gratt. 706; Sellers v. People, 77 N.Y. 413.

GANTT, J. Sherwood, P. J., and Burgess, J., concur.

OPINION

GANTT, J.

The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Holt county, Missouri, at the August term, 1900, for feloniously conveying a revolver into the county jail of Holt county, which pistol it was alleged was useful to aid prisoners to escape out of and from said jail; the said Jane Miller then and there intending, feloniously to aid, assist and facilitate the escape of David Miller, who was lawfully committed and detained in said jail according to law, having been convicted of murder in the first degree.

Defendant was duly arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charge in the indictment.

The indictment is founded upon section 2061, Revised Statutes 1899, and is sufficient, under former adjudications of this court. [State v. Addcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Pinnell, 93 Mo. 480, 6 S.W. 221.]

The evidence established that the defendant was and is the wife of David Miller. At the November term, 1899, of the Holt Circuit Court, David Miller was convicted of murder in the first degree and appealed from the sentence to this court, and on the date of the offense charged against defendant in this cause, was incarcerated in the Holt county jail awaiting the result of his appeal.

It conclusively appeared that the defendant conveyed to her husband in said county jail a revolver. Her explanation was that she often visited her husband during his imprisonment and he informed her that it was rumored that he would be mobbed, and he requested her to get him a pistol to defend himself in case he was attacked by a mob.

She got the revolver from her brother and took it to her husband at his request, and acted throughout the matter entirely under his direction and influence.

The defendant prayed the court for a peremptory instruction of not guilty, which the court refused. Thereupon the court gave the following instructions:

"1. The court instructs the jury that the defendant is presumed to be innocent of the offense charged. Before you can convict her, the State must overcome that presumption by proving her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, you will acquit her. But a doubt to authorize an acquittal must be a substantial doubt, founded on the evidence, and not a mere possibility of her innocence.

"2. The court instructs the jury that the defendant is a competent witness on her own behalf, and that you should not reject her testimony merely because she is the defendant. But the fact that she is the defendant, testifying in her own behalf, should be taken into consideration by you in determining what weight you will give to her testimony.

"3. The court instructs the jury that you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of their testimony. In determining such weight and credibility, you will take into consideration the character of the witness his manner on the stand, his interest, if any, in the result of the trial, his relation to or feelings toward the defendant, the probability or improbability of his statements, as well as all the facts and circumstances given in evidence. In this connection you are further instructed that, if you shall believe that any witness has knowingly sworn falsely to any material fact, you are at liberty to reject all or any portion of such witness's testimony.

"4. The court instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Jane Miller, at the county of Holt and State of Missouri, at any time within three years next before the twenty-eighth day of August, 1900, conveyed a pistol into the county jail of Holt county, and that the said Jane Miller then and there intended, in so doing, to aid, assist and facilitate the escape of David Miller out of said jail, you will find the...