The State v. Williams

• Citation: 274 S.W. 427,309 Mo. 155
• Decision Date: 16 June 1925
• Docket Number: 26054
• Parties: THE STATE v. LEON WILLIAMS, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

274 S.W. 427

309 Mo. 155

THE STATE v. LEON WILLIAMS, Appellant

No. 26054

Supreme Court of Missouri

June 16, 1925

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court; Hon. A. F Ittner, Judge.

Affirmed.

John R. Davis and Paul A. Richards for appellant.

(1) The reason that the entire evidence was insufficient, in law, to establish the corpus delicti. State v Henderson, 186 Mo. 473; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 23; State v. Burgdorf, 53 Mo. 65; State v. Nesenhener, 164 Mo. 461; State v. Francis, 199 Mo. 671; State v. Gordon, 199 Mo. 561; State v. Bass, 251 Mo. 107; State v. Welton, 225 S.W 965; State v. Parr, 246 S.W. l. c. 906; State v. Stemmons, 262 S.W. 706; State v. Gatewood, 264 S.W. 42. (2) The court erred in allowing the prosecutor, on voir dire examination, to pledge the jury to assess the punishment of death, in the event of selection to try the case. Secs. 3461, 4195, 4229, R. S. 1889; Sec. 1817, R. S. 1899; Laws 1907, p. 235; Secs. 3232, 4012, 4047, R. S. 1919; State v. Inks, 135 Mo. 678; State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620. (3) The court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged confession of the defendant. State v. Stebbins, 188 Mo. 387; State v. Ellis, 294 Mo. 269. (4) The court erred in excluding evidence, offered by the appellant, as to one Joseph Walker, containing matters and things alleged to be the confession of appellant. Underhill's Crim. Evidence (3 Ed.) sec. 219; State v. Thomas, 250 Mo. 189; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 97. (5) The court erred in permitting witness Daniel Webster Green to testify in rebuttal. State v. Cox, 263 S.W. 219; 28 R. C. L. p. 419, sec. 2; Williams v. Arkansas, 188 S.W. 826; L. R. A. 1917B, p. 586. (6) The court erred in giving and reading to the jury, on its own motion, instructions numbered 1 and 5. Criminal Law, 16 C. J. sec. 2485, p. 1043; State ex rel. v. Morrison, 244 Mo. 193; State v. Bird, 228 S.W. 751; State v. Mahood, 177 S.W. 371; State v. Green, 229 Mo. 642; State v. Rollins, 226 Mo. 524; State v. Elsey, 201 Mo. 561. (7) The court erred in refusing to read and give to the jury appellant's Instruction G, and in giving and in reading this instruction to the jury in a modified form. Sec. 4025, R. S. 1919; State v. Weisman, 256 S.W. 740; State v. Worten, 263 S.W. 124; State v. Majors, 237 S.W. 486. (8) The court erred in refusing to give and read to the jury appellant's offered instructions numbered C and D. State v. Cox, 264 Mo. 408; State v. Moore, 61 S.W. 199; State v. McNeal, 237 S.W. 738; Oliveros v. State, 47 S.E. 627. (9) The court erred in allowing the Assistant Circuit Attorney to indulge in improper argument before the jury, in failing to instruct the jury to disregard, and in failing to reprimand said attorney. State v. Burns, 228 S.W. 766; State v. Thompson, 238 S.W. 115; State v. Hess, 240 Mo. 147; State v. Cole, 252 S.W. 699; State v. Seward, 247 S.W. 151; State v. Dengel, 248 S.W. 603; State v. Connor, 252 S.W. 713; State v. Houston, 263 S.W. 219; State v. Levy, 262 Mo. 181; State v. Upton, 109 S.W. 821; State v. Clancy, 225 Mo. 654. (10) The indictment filed in the instant case does not charge an offense, punishable under the laws of the State of Missouri. State v. Pemberton, 30 Mo. 376; State v. Privitt, 175 Mo. 207; State v. McDaniel, 94 Mo. 301; State v. Jones, 20 Mo. 58; State v. Reakey, 1 Mo.App. 3; State v. Cook, 170 Mo. 210; State v. Wade, 47 S.W. 1070; State v. Banks, 118 Mo. 117; State v. Meyers, 99 Mo. 107; State v. Rector, 23 S.W. 1074; State v. Jones, 20 Mo. 58.

Robert W. Otto, Attorney-General, and Wm. L. Vandeventer, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.

(1) The voir dire examination of the jury by the prosecutor was proper. Sec. 4012, R. S. 1919; State v. Sherman, 264 Mo. 374; State v. Hayes, 262 S.W. 1035; State v. David, 131 Mo. 380; State v. Tevis, 234 Mo. 276; State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620; State v. Murphy, 292 Mo. 275; State v. Gilbert, 186 S.W. 1003; State v. Hays, 262 S.W. 1034. (2) The admission into evidence of the alleged confession of the defendant was proper. State v. Armstrong, 203 Mo. 554; State v. Brooks, 220 Mo. 74; State v. Spaugh, 200 Mo. 571; State v. Jones, 171 Mo. 401; State v. Brennan, 164 Mo. 487; State v. Wilson, 223 Mo. 173; State v. Ruck, 194 Mo. 416; State v. Meyer, 293 Mo. 108; State v. Reich, 293 Mo. 415; State v. McNeal, 237 S.W. 741; State v. Reich, 239 S.W. 837. (a) A confession is prima-facie presumed to be voluntary until the contrary is shown. State v. Hayes, 247 S.W. 168; State v. Seward, 247 S.W. 153; State v. Reich, 239 S.W. 837; State v. Armstrong, 203 Mo. 554. (b) The denial of its voluntary character makes it a matter of fact to be decided by the jury. State v. Hayes, 247 S.W. 165; State v. Seward, 247 S.W. 150. (3) The court did not commit error by the exclusion of the evidence offered by the appellant as to one Joseph Walker, which evidence purported to be an alleged confession of Walker. Donnelly v. United States, 228 U.S. 243; State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 97; Underhill's Crim. Evidence, sec. 238, p. 340; State v. Schyhart, 199 S.W. 205; State v. Duncan, 116 Mo. 288; State v. Taylor, 136 Mo. 73; State v. Evans, 55 Mo. 460; 3 Wigmore on Evidence, secs. 1476, 1477; State v. Mann, 83 Mo. 589; Tillman v. State, 166 S.W. 582; 2 Wharton on Crim. Evidence, sec. 622d; State v. Hack, 118 Mo. 92. (4) The court properly admitted the testimony in rebuttal of witness Daniel Webster Green. This is a matter largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Baker, 262 Mo. 689; State v. Burgess, 193 S.W. 821; State v. Dilts, 191 Mo. 673; State v. Ferguson, 278 Mo. 119; State v. Weiss, 219 S.W. 368; State v. Murphy, 292 Mo. 275. (5) The court committed no error in the giving of Instructions 1 and 5. (a) Number 1 is merely an abstract statement of the law and is not defective because of an assumption. The repetition of the subject matter in 1 and 5 is not reversible error. State v. Sebastian, 215 Mo. 86. (b) The evidence was sufficient to give both instructions based on conspiracy. State v. Kennedy, 177 Mo. 118; State v. Collins, 181 Mo. 261; State v. Ruck, 194 Mo. 416; State v. Lewkowitz, 265 Mo. 613; State v. Sykes, 191 Mo. 78; State v. Darling, 199 Mo. 199; State v. Lewis, 273 Mo. 518; State v. Carroll & Jacoy, 288 Mo. 392. (6) The court committed no error in refusing defendant's Instruction G and submitting in lieu thereof Instruction 8. No error is committed by a court in refusing an instruction if the instruction given in lieu thereof is substantially the same and covers the laws in the case. State v. McWilliams, 267 Mo. 437; 16 C. J. sec. 2375, p. 976; State v. Jones, 153 Mo. 457; State v. Brooks, 220 Mo. 74; State v. Harris, 177 S.W. 355. (7) Instruction 8 properly submitted to the jury the law as to the defense of an alibi. State v. Hillebrand, 285 Mo. 290; State v. Bonner, 259 Mo. 342; State v. Glasscock, 232 Mo. 278; State v. Barton, 214 Mo. 316; State v. Anglin, 222 S.W. 776; State v. Brown, 247 Mo. 715; State v. Shelton, 223 Mo. 118. (8) The court committed no error in refusing defendant's instructions C and D. It is not error to refuse a special instruction, although it states a correct principle applicable to the case, if it has already been covered properly and sufficiently by another instruction. State v. McWilliams, 267 Mo. 437; State v. Gilbert, 186 S.W. 1003; State v. Cariou, 266 Mo. 82; State v. Harris, 177 S.W. 355. (9) Instruction 6 given by the court sufficiently instructed the jury as to law of confessions or statements by defendant. State v. Simenson, 263 Mo. 264; State v. Merkel, 189 Mo. 315; State v. Wisdom, 119 Mo. 539; State v. Hamilton, 263 S.W. 131; State v. McCleane, 256 S.W. 814; State v. Long, 253 S.W. 729; State v. Knowles, 185 Mo. 141; State v. Johnson, 252 S.W. 623. (10) The argument of the Assistant Attorney before the jury was proper. State v. Baker, 262 Mo. 689; State v. Gartrell, 171 Mo. 489; State v. Rasco, 239 Mo. 535; State v. White, 299 Mo. 599; State v. Prison, 236 S.W. 357; State v. Prunty, 276 Mo. 359; State v. Sherman, 264 Mo. 374; State v. Rogers, 253 Mo. 399; State v. Hewitt, 259 S.W. 780; State v. Shour, 196 Mo. 202; State v. Julin, 292 Mo. 265; State v. Williams, 191 Mo. 205; State v. Murchie, 225 S.W. 954; State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 680; State v. Reich, 239 S.W. 837. (11) The indictment in instant case was sufficient and properly charged the defendant. State v. Ferguson, 278 Mo. 119; State v. Privitt, 175 Mo. 207; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; State v. Gleason, 172 Mo. 259; State v. Jones, 134 Mo. 254; State v. Adkins, 284 Mo. 680; State v. Stokes, 288 Mo. 539.

OPINION

Walker, P. J.

At the December term, 1923, of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, the appellant and several other negroes were jointly indicted for the murder of a white man named Harry Leonard. A severance was granted and the appellant was separately tried in June, 1914, convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at death.

On December 30, 1923, the deceased and his wife kept a soft drink parlor on the corner of Randolph and Twenty-second streets in the city of St. Louis. The room where the business was conducted was on the ground floor of a building, the entrance to which was on Randolph Street. A bar, such as was formerly used in saloons, extended along the room from the south to the north. The room was divided by swinging doors. In the portion of the room north of these doors and parallel with the bar was a cigar case, directly in the rear of which was a large safe, which stood against the west wall of the building. The deceased and his wife had conducted the business named at the place stated for about three years. The section was inhabited almost exclusively by negroes, who were the principal patrons of the place.

About 11:30 p. m. on Sunday night, ...