The State v. Raper

• Decision Date: 09 November 1897
• Citation: 42 S.W. 935,141 Mo. 327
• Parties: The State v. Raper, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

42 S.W. 935

141 Mo. 327

The State v. Raper, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 9, 1897

Appeal from Dent Circuit Court. -- Hon. James F. Green, Judge.

Affirmed.

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

(1) There was no error in the court admitting the testimony as to the altercation between Barlow and defendant Raper, which immediately preceded and was connected with the ejection of defendant from the house, and his almost simultaneous assault on Long. The general principle is that evidence of the entire transaction connected with an assault is admissible and all the surroundings, and in proving the whole transaction it is competent to give evidence of what happened immediately after or before the assault, if it is connected therewith. State v. Kennade, 121 Mo. 405; State v Sanders, 76 Mo. 35; McClain's Criminal Law, sec 411. (2) The law is that one who is about to be assaulted with a deadly weapon is not required to wait until his assailant gets on equal terms with himself before proceeding to make self-defense, and this principle the instruction on self-defense clearly announced, and that was sufficient. State v. Alley, 68 Mo. 124; McClain's Criminal Law, sec. 304; State v. Rider, 95 Mo. 474; State v. Wilson, 98 Mo. 440; State v. Palmer, 88 Mo. 568.

OPINION

Sherwood, J.

The defendant was indicted for an assault with malice aforethought upon one James Long with a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a large heavy glass bottle, and for striking beating and wounding him with the same, with intent to kill and murder. The indictment is founded upon section 3489, Revised Statutes 1889.

The jury found defendant guilty of an assault with intent to kill, but without malice, and assessed his punishment at two years in the penitentiary. The evidence, although there was some conflict, was amply sufficient to support the verdict, and the instructions were all that the evidence required for the information of the jury.

There was no error in admitting testimony of defendant going into the house where there was a "play party" in progress and cursing Barlow. There are several reasons why the admission of such evidence was not erroneous First, because it had a tendency to show the quo animo on the part of defendant in going into a private house and a peaceful assemblage of young people and raising a disturbance, armed or...