The State v. Shackelford
| Decision Date | 07 March 1899 |
| Citation | 50 S.W. 105,148 Mo. 493 |
| Parties | The State v. Shackelford, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. -- Hon. William Zachritz Judge.
Affirmed.
C. O Bishop for appellant.
Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis at the June term, 1898. From the judgment and sentence of that court he has appealed to this court.
Without brief or assignment of errors we have been compelled to read every word of a transcript containing five hundred and fifty pages, in order to determine whether any substantial error was committed by the trial court against the defendant.
From the convening of the court at its February term, 1898, down to the signing of the bill of exceptions we discover no error in the record proper.
The grand jury was lawfully constituted, the indictment is a clear, logical, and technically sufficient charge of the murder of one George W. Taylor in the city of St. Louis on the twentieth day of November, 1897, by the defendant Thomas W. Shackelford and Nettie Taylor, by administering arsenic to said George W. Taylor in coffee.
The defendant was duly arraigned on the twenty-sixth of March, 1898, and entered a plea of not guilty. The cause was continued to the April term of that year. A severance was granted at the same term, and the cause was again continued by consent of defendant Shackelford to the June term, 1898. At the June term a trial was had, and defendant convicted as charged.
I. Upon the voir dire examination of the jurors two of the panel of forty-seven jurors were challenged by counsel for defendant, to wit, Joseph Schaub and Ernest Schlueter. Each of these jurors distinctly testified that the only opinions they had formed about the case were from reading the newspaper reports; that they could give the defendant a fair and impartial trial; that they did not know the prisoner or any of the witnesses or counsel in the case.
Some reference was made to the jurors' reading a copy of the evidence taken at the coroner's inquest but no effort was made to show that the jurors read the evidence itself and one at least answered that he could not say it was any more than the newspaper comment on the inquest.
When it is sought to disqualify a juror by reason of his having read the official evidence before the coroner, it should appear that he read the evidence itself, not some garbled statement of it nor a mere editorial or reportorial comment thereon. Nothing of the sort was attempted in this case, and the challenges were properly overruled.
II. Looking to the motion of defendant for a new trial in the circuit court for errors complained of on the part of that court, we find that at least five of the fifteen grounds of that motion challenge the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain the verdict. While it has been uniformly ruled by this court that we will not interfere with a verdict when there is substantial evidence to support it notwithstanding it may not clearly appear to this court that the defendant is guilty as charged [State v. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 5 S.W. 889; State v. Cook, 58 Mo. 546; State v. Schaefer, 116 Mo. 96, 22 S.W. 447], we have as steadily held that we have the right to consider the whole evidence and if it appears that the verdict can only be ascribed to prejudice, passion, or partiality this court will set aside that verdict, notwithstanding it may have received the approval of the trial court. [State v. Lowe, 93 Mo. 547, 5 S.W. 889; State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 242, 5 S.W. 906; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 11 S.W. 732.]
We come now to inquire whether the evidence is so deficient in probative force as to require this court to overturn the verdict of the jury.
A careful synopsis of the evidence exhibits these facts. George W. Taylor and Nettie Taylor held themselves out to the world as husband and wife. They were negroes and had come to St. Louis from Memphis, Tennessee, as had the defendant Thomas W. Shackelford. They had resided some nine or ten months at No. 24 Targee street, in the city of St. Louis. Sometime in November, it appears the deceased and his wife were not living amicably. Deceased about this time went to the house No. 1505 Pine street, kept by another negro woman by the name of Mattie Jackson. Mattie Jackson's family consisted of herself and husband, and two unmarried daughters. She rented furnished rooms to others of her race. Deceased rented a room on the second floor and occupied it at night with Ethel Gibbons. The Gibbons woman only remained a few days and after her departure Taylor induced another negro woman, Fannie Jones, also a roomer in said house to occupy his room with him, and they had maintained this relation for some days prior to the twentieth day of November, 1897. On Saturday night, the nineteenth day of November, the defendant visited Taylor in his room at No. 1505 Pine street, and when he left that night remarked that he would come over next morning and breakfast with Taylor and the Jones woman, and Taylor invited him to do so. Defendant came next morning at 8 o'clock but as they had not yet risen he left and returned about ten o'clock that morning. Taylor, the deceased, called to him to wait and he would go with him to market. Deceased then left the house and procured a steak and tripe, and returned with defendant to the house No. 1505 Pine street. The Jones woman cooked the steak and tripe, also some cakes, oatmeal and coffee for the breakfast.
Defendant and deceased went to his room while the breakfast was in preparation. Defendant offered his services to bring the meal from the basement in which it was cooked and brought it all up save the last plate of cakes which the Jones woman herself took with her when she finished. Deceased and the Jones woman ate the breakfast but defendant declined to partake of it.
After breakfast defendant and deceased took a walk in the direction of the river and returned in the afternoon, deceased showing evidence of great pain and nausea. He was assisted to bed and was very sick all night, vomiting and suffering excrutiating pains in his bowels. Defendant remained awhile after supper and left for his rooms 24 Targee street.
On the following Monday morning the Jones woman left deceased quite early to do some washing for a private family. During her absence the defendant returned to the house, No. 1505 Pine street, and went to Taylor's room. Shortly afterwards he brought a pot of cold coffee into the kitchen and asked leave to warm it for deceased. As his pot was small, one of the young women, daughter of the proprietor of the establishment, suggested it would boil quicker if it was poured into the family coffee pot, which fitted the holes in the stove. Accordingly she poured it into her mother's coffee pot and warmed it. Defendant took this coffee to deceased and deceased drank it and in about thirty minutes began to vomit copiously and to complain of his bowels.
The Jones woman failed to get her job that morning and returned about 8 o'clock and drank some of the same coffee and about thirty minutes later was taken violently sick, vomiting and pains in the bowels. After warming the coffee for defendant, one of Mrs. Jackson's daughters without rinsing the pot made a cup of coffee for her mother. Mrs. Jackson drank it and became sick with nausea and vomiting. Obtaining no relief, Mrs. Jackson called a physician, Dr. Ryan on Tuesday. He visited her two days and prescribed for her, and on Thursday, Dr. Fenwick, another physician, came to the house and treated the Jackson woman.
On Tuesday, the wife of the deceased, Nettie Taylor came from her home, No. 24 Targee street, and spent most of the day with her husband. She made him some chicken broth and administered some powders to him. On Monday the Jones woman went after Dr. Curtis for Taylor, but failed to find him and meeting the defendant on the street and being told by him that the doctor was coming, she returned to the house. Though deceased's wife and defendant were advised of the presence of the two physicians in the house, neither was allowed to see the deceased.
Taylor continued to grow worse. On Wednesday his wife and defendant left him and returned to their rooms on Targee street. During Wednesday night Taylor managed to leave the house No. 1505 Pine street and reach his wife's rooms. No physician was called and he died Thursday night, November 25, 1897.
Dr. White testified he was a physician. His office was 1117 Morgan street. On the nineteenth day of November, 1897, in the morning defendant came to his office and desired to purchase some arsenic. The doctor refused to sell it to him and inquired for what purpose he wanted it. Defendant said he wanted to give it to a man and have the doctor visit him and after his death issue a burial certificate. That he wanted to ship the body to Memphis, Tennessee. Failing to obtain the arsenic of Dr. White defendant left and procured it of a druggist named Schroeder, No. 1401 Morgan street. Asked by Schroeder for his prescription, the defendant said he had told the doctor he would need it, but that Doctor White said, "Tell Dr. Schroeder it is all right, I am engaged now with a patient." After obtaining the arsenic he showed it to Dr. White.
Defendant after his arrest made the following statement to Captain O'Malley of the police force of St. Louis:
To continue reading
Request your trial