The State v. Paulsgrove
| Decision Date | 02 April 1907 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. MARTIN PAULSGROVE, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from DeKalb Circuit Court. -- Hon. A. D. Burnes, Judge.
Affirmed.
Herbert S. Hadley, Attorney-General, and John Kennish, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) Only the record proper is before this court for review. (a) No authenticated bill of exceptions appears as part of the record in this case. What purports to be a bill of exceptions does not contain the instructions, the motion for a new trial or motion in arrest of judgment, and is not signed by the judge nor certified to by the clerk of the court. State v. Baty, 166 Mo. 561; Reno v. Fitz Jarrell, 163 Mo. 411. Copying the motions for a new trial and in arrest in the record proper does not preserve them in the bill of exceptions. State v. Revely, 145 Mo. 666; State v. Griffin, 98 Mo. 672. (b) It is shown by the record that the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed after judgment and sentence, nor was any objection made when judgment was rendered nor motion by defendant to set the same aside in order that motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment might be filed. The motions for a new trial and in arrest must be filed before judgment. R. S 1899, secs. 2689, 2690; State v. Rosenblatt, 185 Mo 114; Willis v. State, 62 Ind. 391. (2) The court did not err in giving instructions to the jury on behalf of the State. Fifteen instructions were given on behalf of the State covering the subjects of murder in the first degree, the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, absence of motive and credibility of witnesses, and as to the effect of statements made by defendant concerning the offense charged. These instructions were in accordance with approved precedents. Instructions were also given fully covering the law of insanity, and were in conformity with the precedents of this court on that subject. State v. Pagels, 92 Mo. 314; State v. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44; State v Speyer, 182 Mo. 66; State v. Church, 199 Mo. 605. In instruction 6, given on behalf of the State, the word "not" seems to have been omitted by mistake, but as the same subject was fully and correctly covered by instruction 10, given on behalf of defendant, the jury could not have been misled by such mistake. (3) Ten instructions were given on behalf of defendant, and presented the law of the case in at least as favorable form as the defendant was entitled to. Of the seventeen instructions asked by defendant, seven were properly refused by the court. The first because under the law the defendant was not entitled to an instruction on the theory of murder in the second degree. State v. Speyer, 182 Mo. 77; State v. Holloway, 156 Mo. 222; Baldwin v. State, 12 Mo. 223. The second, because the court had fully instructed on that question in instruction 3 given on behalf of defendant. The third, because the question sought to be presented therein was fully covered by instruction 3 given on behalf of the State, and 5 given on behalf of the defendant. The fourth, because there was no evidence in the case to authorize an instruction on manslaughter in the fourth degree. Baldwin v. State, supra. The fifth and sixth, because the court had fully instructed on the questions of law presented therein. The seventh, because defendant is not entitled to an instruction on circumstantial evidence in a case where the defense is insanity. State v. Soper, 148 Mo. 239.
From a conviction and sentence for murder in the first degree by the circuit court of DeKalb county, the defendant has appealed to this court.
This prosecution was commenced on the 20th of January, 1905, by the filing of an information by the prosecuting attorney of Andrew county in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of said county in vacation, charging the defendant with murder in the first degree of Mary Newman. At the May term, 1905, the cause was set down specially for trial on the 29th of August, 1905. On the last-mentioned date, the defendant was duly arraigned and a plea of not guilty entered. On a proper application, a change of venue was granted to DeKalb county. At the October term, 1905, of the DeKalb court, the defendant was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. Motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed and overruled and the defendant duly sentenced by the court. The defendant is not represented in this court by counsel and this has necessitated an examination of the whole record by this court.
The testimony discloses that at the time of the homicide, the 18th of January, 1905, the defendant was an unmarried man about twenty-four years of age, and resided in Andrew county. He had served as a soldier in the Army of the United States in the Philippine Islands for probably two years, and after the return of his regiment to the United States, he was discharged and returned to Andrew county in the early part of 1904. The father of the defendant resided on a farm in Andrew county seven miles east of Savannah. The defendant worked as a farm hand in the neighborhood, and stayed at the home of his father part of the time. The deceased, Miss Mary Newman, lived with her parents some three or four miles distant from the Paulsgrove home. At the time of the homicide she was teaching school in the Paulsgrove neighborhood and boarding with that family. The defendant had been a suitor of Miss Newman for nearly a year after his return from the army to Andrew county, and had frequently called upon her at her own home and at his father's. He visited her at the latter place the night before the homicide. On Wednesday evening about three o'clock, January 18, 1905, the defendant came to his father's house and remained there conversing with the members of the family until about 4:30 p. m., when Miss Newman and three of the smaller Paulsgrove children returned from school. In a few minutes after her arrival, the defendant told Miss Newman that he wanted to see her, and they went into the parlor, which seems to have been the east room on the ground floor of the building, and closed the door. After they had been in the parlor a short time, the family heard Miss Newman scream "O, Martin, don't!" Mrs. Paulsgrove ran to the parlor door, opened it, and saw the defendant have hold of Miss Newman; Mrs. Paulsgrove seized him and he then turned upon her, she jumped behind the stove, and he shot at her twice with a pistol; he then forcibly took Miss Newman from the parlor into the adjoining sitting room, the latter struggling and resisting until she fainted. He then pulled her upon the bed in the sitting room, and shot her twice through the head, each of which wounds was mortal.
The defendant, prior to the homicide, had tried to buy a revolver at different places, saying he wanted to shoot rabbits. About two hours before the homicide, he bought a revolver at a little village called Kodiac about two miles from the Paulsgrove residence.
For some time before the homicide the defendant had told a number of people in the neighborhood of his affection for Miss Newman, and to several had stated that he intended to be married to her. On one occasion, when he was told not to be too sure of it, that she might go back on him, he replied with an oath that if she did, he would shoot her.
Just after the shooting of the deceased by the defendant, he went out of the house on the north side and said, "I loved her and she threw me away, I could not stand it, and I killed her." He remained at his father's house about half an hour after the shooting. During that time he cut the telephone wire and said to his half brother, "Do not speak a word, you have done me enough dirt, but I will let you go this time." He then left his home and went to Savannah, where he was arrested about ten o'clock that night.
The defense was insanity. The depositions of five soldiers, a lieutenant of the company in which he served in the Philippine Islands, and four other members of the company, were read in evidence and tended strongly to prove that the defendant was insane during the time of his service in the Philippines. There were other witnesses also, who had known the defendant in the neighborhood in which he lived and had been reared, whose testimony tended to prove that the defendant was not of sound mind. On the other hand, the State introduced a large number of witnesses, including the neighbors and farmers for whom the defendant had worked, and other testimony covering the defendant's life from his boyhood until the date of the homicide, which tended to prove that he was not insane; that while he was not of a very bright mind, he was reasonably intelligent and of sound mind, and that he was an exceedingly trustworthy and industrious boy and man in the performance of his work as a farm laborer and an employee of the dairy company.
The information is in all respects sufficient and according to the often approved precedents, and it is therefore unnecessary to set it forth at length. It was duly verified by the prosecuting attorney.
The court submitted the case to the jury upon an issue of murder in the first degree, and upon a plea of not guilty and a plea of insanity. The court defined the words "wilfully," "feloniously," "deliberately," "premeditatedly," "malice" and "malice aforethought" as those words have often been defined in instructions which have met the approval of this court. And also gave the usual instructions on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, the credibility of the witnesses and good character, and then the court instructed the jury as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial