The State v. Staats
| Decision Date | 09 December 1922 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. FRANK STAATS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Boone Circuit Court. -- Hon. David H. Harris, Judge.
Reversed.
Harris & Price and N. T. Cave for appellant.
(1) The court erred in permitting the prosecuting attorney to persistently cross-examine the defendant in an illegal unwarranted and highly prejudicial manner, on matters not touched upon or growing out of defendant's examination in chief. Sec. 4036, R.S. 1919; State v. Sharp, 233 Mo 286; State v. Goodwin, 271 Mo. 81; State v Pfeifer, 267 Mo. 30; State v. Grant, 144 Mo. 56; State v. Hathhorn, 166 Mo. 239; State v. Hudspeth, 150 Mo. 31; State v. Bell, 212 Mo. 111. (2) The court erred in refusing to sustain the demurrer offered by defendant at the close of all the evidence, there being no substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of the defendant for murder in either degree. State v. Kelsay, 228 S.W. 754; State v. Nave, 222 S.W. 744; State v. Adkins, 222 S.W. 432; State v. Hollis, 225 S.W. 952; State v. Anderson, 225 S.W. 896; State v. Welton, 225 S.W. 965; State v. Ruckman, 532 Mo. 488; State v. Francis, 199 Mo. 693; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 179; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 363. (3) The verdict of the jury is unsupported by the evidence and is manifestly the result of prejudice, passion and partiality. State v. O'Kelly, 258 Mo. 351; State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 414; State v. Prendible, 165 Mo. 353; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368; State v. Castor, 93 Mo. 243; State v. Jaeger, 66 Mo. 173; State v. Burdorf, 53 Mo. 65; State v. Marshall, 47 Mo. 378; State v. Daubert, 42 Mo. 238; State v. Mansfield, 41 Mo. 70; State v. Brosius, 39 Mo. 534; State v. Packwood, 26 Mo. 340.
Jesse W. Barrett, Attorney-General, and Albert Miller, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
The court, over the objections and exceptions of defendant, permitted the State repeatedly to ask defendant questions on cross-examination upon matters not referred to in his examination in chief. This, we think, was error prejudicial to the defendant in this case. Sec. 4036, R.S. 1919; State v. Edelen, 231 S.W. 587; State v. Goodwin, 271 Mo. 81; State v. Pfeifer, 267 Mo. 23, 30; State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 414, 434; State v. Sharp, 233 Mo. 269, 284.
Walter, J., thinks cause should be remanded.
On a trial in the Circuit Court of Boone County, in May, 1921, the defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree in that he killed one Samuel Halstead, about the twenty-fourth day of June 1920.
Halstead was very old, between seventy-five and eighty years, feeble and lame. His wife, Sallie Halstead, was the grandmother of the defendant. Early in her life Sallie Halstead bore an illegitimate daughter named Flora. Afterwards she married Elias Barnes. Elias Barnes died twenty-five years before the trial, and after his death she married Samuel Halstead, the deceased.
The illegitimate daughter, Flora, married one Jake Staats, and of that marriage the defendant and another son, Price Staats, were born. Flora died some years before the alleged murder, and Jake Staats had married again. Samuel Halstead was killed at the place where he had been living. The defendant, who was married, lived about three miles distant from that place. Jake Staats had a small farm of about fourteen acres adjoining the place where the Halsteads lived. Price Staats lived some five miles away from his father's place. The Halstead place was a farm of seventy-two acres in which Sallie Halstead, the grandmother, had a life estate. The title to that farm enters into the controversy in this case and will be noticed later.
Halstead was found dead in his house on Thursday, the twenty-fourth day of June, 1920. He had been shot from the rear with a 22-calibre rifle. Tobacco and other things were in one of his pockets. Another pocket, supposed to have contained money, was empty and turned wrong side out.
It should be mentioned here that Halstead was deaf and dumb, his wife Sallie was deaf and dumb, her first husband had been deaf and dumb, Jake Staats the father of the defendant was deaf. An interpreter was necessary in producing some of the evidence introduced in the case.
On Sunday before the Thursday when Halstead was found dead he and Sallie, his wife, drove over to the defendant's house and paid them a visit. Everything seemed to indicate they were on friendly terms; nothing unusual occurred. Sunday afternoon Halstead drove back alone, leaving his wife, Sallie, with her grandson. She decided to visit there a few days. So far as the evidence showed, nothing unusual occurred in the movements, whereabouts or demeanor of the defendant between that time and the discovery of the body. On Thursday, late in the afternoon, Jake Staats found the old man dead in his own house. On learning of the death the defendant went over there, and a number of others gathered in; the body was examined and placed in a coffin. The evidence tended to show that Halstead had been dead several days; the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition.
Other facts in relation to the surroundings at the time by which it is attempted to connect the defendant with the murder will be noticed later in the opinion. On the evidence produced the defendant was found guilty of murder in the second degree, and appealed from the judgment thereupon rendered.
I. The State confesses error, caused by improper cross-examination of defendant. When the defendant was on the stand the State's attorney persisted in asking questions relating to matters not referred to in the examination in chief, and, in spite of the court's rulings sustaining objections to such questions, the prosecutor persisted, as shown through several pages of the record, in asking questions of such character as to indicate knowledge on his part of damaging facts. Such examination was very prejudicial, and the State properly confesses error.
II. The defendant's counsel here, however, insists that his demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained on the ground that there was no substantial evidence which would authorize the jury to render a verdict of guilty. A motive for the crime was asserted in the character of the title to the farm upon which the deceased lived. The first husband of Sallie Barnes, Elias Barnes, in 1891 conveyed the seventy-two acres of land to his wife to hold during her life; at her death it was to go to Flora Staats, the illegitimate daughter of Sallie Barnes, and if Flora Staats died without leaving heirs it was to go to Jacob Staats and his heirs. Flora had long since died, so that as the title stood at the time of the alleged murder Sallie Halstead had a life estate and Jake Staats, the father of the defendant, had the remainder. No title could vest in the defendant until his father should die without having disposed of the property. It is extremely unlikely that the defendant could so misunderstand the state of the title as to conclude that the death of Halstead would help him.
There was evidence to show that Jake Staats at one time had rented the Halstead farm, had difficulty about it, and in the difficulty between Jake and his mother, Sallie Barnes, Frank sided with his grandmother and against his father. Contracts and leases were prepared and drawn in connection with the matter, but there is no evidence in connection with those transactions which throws any light upon any supposed motive. There was evidence tending to show that the defendant had lived with his grandmother Halstead before he married, and for a while after he married, and that he had had a quarrel with the deceased and at one time kicked him out of the house. That was a long time before the death. There was no evidence whatever as to any bad feeling between the two for a considerable period before the death. There seems to be no adequate motive, though it is true that at times murder is committed from a very insignificant motive.
The defendant's demeanor after the discovery of the body is entirely inconsistent with guilt. He behaved precisely as an innocent man would behave. He went to the house with the others and assisted in every way possible. His grandmother testified that on Monday afternoon before the body was discovered he had his gun, a 22-rifle, out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial