*1 Vol. APRIL 1926. TERM, v. Cockriel. place affidavits, five of the- two take tke affidavits dispense proof. five affidavits also with These additional neighborhoods of must come from in different citizens satisfy comity. joint affidavit Therefore would separate show affidavits which statute; there must be five neighborhoods coun- the situation five different ty coining different . five When those five affidavits from quarters against county prejudice exists show that prejudice is suf- then the statute the defendant, under change further ficient to without authorize the of venue proof. joint case in this affidavit filed Therefore, the insufficiency ruling respect and the insufficient, its proper. judgment. affirming
For these reasons concur in Blair, J., concurs these views. Appellant.
THE STATE v. ACE COCKRIEL, Two, May 28, Division 1926.
1. Insanity: CONTINUANCE: Immaterial Eye- Evidence: Defective sight. affidavit, support application An made in of defendant’s continuance, charged murdering wife, wherein the de- insanity, affiant, sister, fense is to the effect that diligent procure made ex-soldiers, effort to the records of which injuries army would show that defendant had received mind, stating injuries, any, unbalanced his but not what if he re- ceived, injuries or that he had not recovered from the at the time homicide, of the later fense, does not state evidence material de- apparent produced where it is from the evidence at the trial injuries military that the defendant suffered while service were eyes, injuries to his that he had recovered from those before deceased, engaged married that he had later in work which re- quired good eyesight, automobiles, that he was a reckless driver of driving speed. and had been arrested for at excessive -: Absent Witnesses: Cumulative Evidence. In trial of murder, insanity, defendant for wherein the defense is the court did by denying application continuance, not abuse its discretion for a affidavits, per- based on wherein it was stated that certain absent SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. present testify sons if that defendant at the time of pro- mind,
homicide was of trial unsound where defendant at the who, duced numerous that he was insane at and witnesses testified long prior homicide, *2 the and wit- to of the absent the evidence produced merely if nesses would have been cumulative. Opinion Lay Sanity. lay may 3. EVIDENCE: of Witnesses: A witness homicide, testify prior that the defendant was and the sane at to stating opinion. without the on which bases his The rule facts he lay testify that where a witness is called to that an individual is insane, must his conclu- first state the facts on which bases sion, testify apply called that the does not the witness is wherei person inquiry mental is is sane. whose condition under Objec Allegations of for Divorce: No 4. —:-: in Petition Deceased admitting tion. in It will not be ruled that error was committed portion petition a in that the of the deceased wife for of evidence defendant, charged murdering her, divorce which her at from torney him, previously without read to where it admitted exceptions. objection, preserved and is not in bill of Objectionable Questions: Non-Prejudicial.- 5. CROSS-EXAMINATION: murdering wife, only In trial of defendant for wherein the witness, insanity, and wherein a who the husband defense was many sister, of had testified facts and circumstances defendant’s addled on he based his that defendant’s mind was army 1917and insane ever when he had been entered in return, mother and that neither he nor defendant’s or' since his placed application an insane have him sister had ever made asylum, questions said witness on cross-examination learned was insane effect if the first time he that defendant only made, insanity charge if was not not the murder after have, was not the and if the homicide defense defendant could him, objectionable insanity claiming for were reason for witness’s prejudicial. argumentative, but Incompetent Assign- OF Counsel: No MISCARRIAGE JUSTICE: 6. ment in Motion. If that defendant’s the contention incompetent grossly ignorant and to conduct the defense of the law ground trial, the trial for a new* and was not made of motion upon given opportunity to rule court was not therefore point, appeal. point been But if be it cannot sustained trial, properly it would in case made in motion a new support it, nothing there- there the record to be held that is miscarriage complete has fore that there been a the contention incompetency only justice merit. when is without fairly prevented present- great from is so counsel Vol. APRIL TERM, 1926.
ing defense, prejudice the conduct serious error therefrom, incompetency the case result will of counsel authorize a new trial. Corpus proof corpus MURDER: 7. Delicti. delicti is estab- agency lished the death of criminal deceased death, causing her clear this case is and conclusive. Insanity: establishing -:8. Burden. defense burden of determination, insanity upon defendant, rests under and its proper instructions, jury. is for the Insanity: Insanity 9. MURDER: Characteristics. is an insidious question disease, diagnosis; is a and sometimes difficult of but determine, preponderates jury and where the evidence by proper defense, question against in- is submitted necessarily structions, guilty, which is -to the effect the verdict of wife, will be sane that defendant was at the time killed miscarriage justice. held with Ver- -: -: Instructions: Interference Intoxication: *3 ap- given frequently dict. followed forms Where the instructions jury fully upon questions proved, aris- all of law informed the returning necessary guidance ing their for their in case and innocence, presumption verdict, including doubt, reasonable insanity proof, intoxication and the defenses .of the burden wife, and the indictment killed his defendant shot and at the time clearly charged of murder with the crime defendant supported every issue, verdict, upon degree, and the first guilty evidence, murder defendant found substantial imprisonment, punishment degree and no life and fixed first here, presented this court appear procedural record errors judgment. affirm the will p. 821, J., Law, Juris-Cyc. C. Corpus Criminal 16 Section References: 501, 88; 921, p. 465, 73; 838, p. Section 91; n. 451, n. Section Section n. 2285, 99; 4; 751, p. 752, 1540, p. 81; n. Section 531, 1002, n. p. n. Section J., 3349, p. 39; 1145, 37, 2642, p. Section 57; n. 17 C. 925, p. n. Section 5; 3656, p. 311, 211, 3557, p. n. 50; n. Section p. 88, .87, 43; Section n. n. Homicide, p. 312, J., 42. n. 30 C. Section Austin, H. J. Court. —Hon. Circuit from Jackson Appeal Judge. Aeotrmed. SUPREME COURT- OF MISSOURI. v.
State Joseph Walter E. Walsh, Jerome Walsh and R. appellant. Stewart
(1) The trial court abused its discretion over objection exception compelling of the defendant in go gave the defendant to trial, days but seventeen from return of the indicment twenty-five days alleged but from the date offense employ prepare procure depositions counsel, for trial, injuries toas contained in the records of the United Washington, States Government at C.,D. to obtain important pos^ the evidence of witnesses, which could not sibly period be done within such a of time. State short v. Salts, 304; 263 Mo. 354; State v. 159 Mo. Tettanton, v. Riddle, 179 Mo. v. 287; State State Mo. Arnold, 267 33; State v. Sovem, 225 580; Mo. State Sublett, v. (2) admitting Mo. 163. The court erred in in evidence opinion appel- the witness Merrill Come, that this lant was sane, for the reason that the said witness did appellant, not know the not seen him or observed length for a sufficient cir- did time, not state facts or upon opinion, cumstances which to base his and was qualified give express opinion subject. to. or an on admitting opinion And the court erred in in evidence the appellant of witness Benton, that this for the sane, reason that! said witness did not know him, did not upon opin- facts state or circumstances which to base his length ion, or seen observed him for a sufficient qualified give express of time, and was not or subject. 74 Mo. Erb, 199; *4 Klinger, v. 46 Mo. 229; v. State 263 Mo. Morris, 339; State ’ Speyer, (3) v. 194 Mo. 459. ad- The erred in court mitting objection exception in evidence over the and of petition against the the defendant, for the divorce filed by the defendant the deceased, for the reason that the petition any was not a document admissible under rule allegations of evidence. The statements and therein con- presence outside tained were made of the accused, of the pleader, parte, voluntary conclusions the Were of ex state- APRIL TERM, 1926. 703 Vol.
State v. Cockriel. right cross-ex- and defendant was denied the of ments, party making amination reference as the thereto, improper highly prejudicial them was and and dead, were directly poison arouse evidence and calculated to and jury against the New- minds the defendant. State v. Jaeger, 220 comb, 54;Mo. State 66 173; v. Mo. v. State (4) per- 68 Rotchsehild, Mo. court erred mitting highly improper judicial questions and asked cross-examination of witness and Covert, failing reprimand attorney, prosecuting assistant request attorney. of the Miller, defense State v. Mo. 326; 302; Hess, State v. 253 Mo. Wellman, v. 147; Webb, 131 Mo. Bobbst, 328; Mo. State v. (5) 254 plete miscarriage com- Mo. 414. trial of a this cause was justice. was not The defendant given impartial fair and referred to trial. presence jury of the as murderer. The scene of place murder. homicide was referred to as the of the hearsay opin- evidence, Rules of evidence were laid aside, qualification, fact, ion evidence or statements of without presence im- statements made outside the proper of the accused, highly prejudicial and statements evidence and objections placed jury. before the were Statements by prosecuting questions at- were made purpose torneys prej- than to which could have no other jury against Witnesses for udice the defendant, i of- were rebuked and. belittled defense defense contempt. ridicule and Defend- fered was treated with grossly incom- the trial this cause was ant’s counsel petent ignorant law. He referred the scene place time murder, as the of the homicide murder. was referred to as the time of the occurrence by placed defendant’s coun- on the stand were Witnesses prove estate, value of real while the defense sel by placed insanity, de- on the stand witnesses were seemingly purpose no fendant’s permitted, State, without on cross-examination any qualified giving objection, being or or facts and not say upon based, circumstances *5 704 SUPREME OF COURT MISSOURI.. v. C'ockriel.
State
App.
Jones, 13
sane. State v.
Mo.
that the defendant was
State v. Cockriel. prejudicial there is no error. State v. 199 Mo. Miles, 530; State Anderson, S. 19.W. *6 appellant
HIGHBEE,C. The was on indicted Octo- County, ber 3, 1924, the Circuit ‘of Court Jackson degree. the crime began of murder in the first trial ITis on October 20th, and a verdict was returned on the 24th, finding guilty degree the defendant of murder in the first punishment assessing imprisonment and his at life penitentiary. the Motions for new trial arrest and were filed and overruled, thereafter, and on November pronounced 8th, sentence was in accordance with the appealed. verdict the defendant charges The indictment that the defendant shot and killed Nina who wife, was the Cockriel, on September properly charges murder degree. arraigned first He was on 3rd, October en- plea guilty. tered a of cause set was for trial on application October at which for a con- 13th, time, on tinuance, the case set for trial on October 20th. was That charged wife, in the defendant shot and killed his questioned ques- is it indictment, nor trial, was appeal; interposed tioned defense sole insanity. thir- defendant, at the of homicide, time
ty-nine years twenty-two; age; she the deceased was they than five wife; second been married less years. conveyed them, ‘The defendant’s mother City, and lot Kansas wife, as husband and a house separated they they six weeks where about until lived working been The defendant had before homicide. Unity- pressman printing School office in the as a years, Christianity wife also three about separated she working a clerk. When there as Robins of Mr. Mrs. residence secured a room Carey being On the Carey, her friends. one S. Mrs. midnight, night defendant homicide, before about ad- Carey wife, to see his house, came to mitted, Carey Mr. bedroom. into wife’s went 314 Mo—45. OF MISSOURI. COURT SUPREME their conversation; that he heard
testified appointment prop- her make an to settle their wanted why say- erty.; her alone, him not leave she asked did ing live a set- him,; did not want to wanted she property something des- tlement of the or he would do Carey’s perate talked to her. Pie so loud wakened baby, Carey him to leave the house. The next told evening Carey’s drug store and talked defendant went to if she wife; about the trouble with his didn’t appointment property there make an to settle going care that he didn’t back trouble; serious about twenty to live with her. Defendant talked to him about Carey In a time came to and left. short Mrs. minutes Carey drug store. Mr. and Mrs. went home about learning' Carey ten went to and, homicide, p. m. police met the Defend- station, where he defendant. *7 Carey, you going ant it.” “I I was to do told Defendant made also this statement to others who testi- fied at the trial. Unity Williams,
Ruth who worked the School Nina a theater Nina and I went to Cockriel, testified: September accompanied evening on the I her 25th, and p. Carey arriving to the house, there about nine We m. porch. sitting saw a man on the dark It was and we recognize lights not did him. There no the house. were said, Mrs. Cockriel the'man who he was. Cockriel honey.” porch, up me, “It went We on and Cock- Carey?” riel Mrs. Nina him it asked, “Is this told ’’ you Ruth He have been? Mrs. said, Williams. “Where you said, Cockriel “To the show.” He said, “Where were night?” last She “To the show.” Cockriel said, said, stepped said, “What show?” She back and I have “Do you?” you, swore, then he an- tell And “God damn pulled me,” swer and his hand out from side and shot her. then fell She stood about five seconds and over on me, shot; and I that she was and then could see she fell to the she he fired another shot As fell floor. lay down; went over to other side of her and and gradually porch gun fell down on down threw the APRIL TEEM, Yol. YU Y C'ockrifel. a as he fell. mumbled hut words, She few poroh; intelligible. There man told him the was a on a I police. They came situation, and he and took called hospital her undertakers. She Cockriel to the always awfully girl. to be an seemed sweet
Merrill lived two hundred feet from Come,who about Cafey there at house, heard two and went shots lying- once. and a woman He testified: I found man porch; dying;; seem to on the the woman was he didn’t badly there. man She while I hurt. died revolver there about was the defendant. I this found empty two shells two from his head. There were feet “I have in the He said, three shells revolver. loaded ’’ through myself m,y heart. I have killed wife and shot way rational as natural and was normal, He in a talked drinking some, been but far I could tell. He police; away by He taken intoxicated. away body undertaker’s taken the woman was parties. wagon. I saw the not know either I did night He Station. at No. 7 Police defendant later you hallway “I said, told Carey in the met Mr. morning next it.” heard conversation do I attorney’s him between prosecuting office answering, deputy, questioning about twen- warrant was sane. the defendant ty I believe minutes. three hours him I was with
Cross-examination: stayed quietly raving. He night He wasn’t before. cigarettes I asked porch and smoked. and asked “Yes, I did.” said, and he woman him he killed this if my says, that is your gun?” “Yes, said, “Is *8 bought that.” yesterday for gun. I to prosecutor if wanted him he asked The Eedirect: here am know; I don’t I plead guilty. “Well, said, He get I can out gone, the best to and I want and she plea a knew that if he prosecutor him The it.” probably degree would first in guilty murder hang- they “Do said, hanging bring sentence, a him prosecutor assured The people in Missouri?” anybody hung- “They haven’t said, did. SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. they?” long in Missouri for a have His time, prosecutor time eame about that and told the that de- plead guilty. fendant’s mother did not him to want I believe it Mr. Childers. Carey I
Mrs. testified: was Mrs. Cockriel’s house during’ much her married life. I have never seen him of,things. mistreat her but she told me once, but has lots When he had restaurant at Fifteenth and Street Holmes years ago, cooking about two she was in the restaurant. evening slapped I was there one and he her. He wanted him, go go. to out a man didn’t with and she want you stay She me I said, want because am stay neighborhood by my- scared to down here in this going, slapped self. He am said, Well, I her. September 19,1924, On the defendant and his mother prepared Chilcott, called at law officeof Mr. who had petition partition property for divorce and held inquired the defendant and wife. Defendant grounds charges for divorce Mr. Chilcott-read the petition deny any to him. He not did charges. living He didn’t care about with her .any hospital more; been in the she had and had that part operations performed; two that the best of her was hospital; sexually longer she no a wife and he didn’t care whether she lived with him him, any not; more or that she see delivered. property petition mother. The was filed on September restraining 20th, an order obtained any way. molesting defendant from Mrs. Cockriel petition but, in evidence offered except portion objecting counsel read to the which was only portion in evi- was admitted defendant, that exceptions. preserved dence. the bill of continuing: (Cockriel) He said he would Witness going her divorce, not contest the but he to let property. have He mother were in and. from, three-quarters of an office one-half hour. appeared perfectly to be sane. *9 APEIL TEEM,
Yol. petition Q. Cross-examination: Yon stated that (Nina) he kill her, for divorce that she was afraid you? petition A. did think the he No, I will show that attempted' to kill her Q,. once before. Nina had Did you attempted Cockriel tell he had kill her? A. attempted by driving her he to Mil an automobile Yes, Q. into lake. her? A. Was he in car with Yes. n Q. Did she any you tell other he acts that did questionable a man and wife? A. as to She told up. beating me about his her And down at the restaurant somewhere Fifteenth Street, close to she told me about grabbing* by pulling* him her the hair her around beating* got drunk restaurant and her. She said he drinking* her. he attempted he beat and mistreated When was her. She said that when he drown that I her, spoken just have of, she left him and to her went brother joint Minneapolis. they in St. Paul She told me had a or day bank account he left all he out checked money the bank and overdrew account. She except got regularly he when he I worked drunk. get
if she if loved told her she shouldn’t a divorce him; any she she killed him; had affection for said he had all her affection the manner in which did and leav- he ing* he told me he had her did. She circumstances repeatedly up get her to come and called her and tried to property set- talk mother with his sister about this He me she over there and talked to tlement. told night him the before his mother and sister and my she said at office. with her about that and I talked sign mother her a deed to his wanted and execute property. for
Dr. met hos- Herman J. Just the defendant pital brought evening of the homi- in on the when was one where above heart, cide. had two wounds powder left two inches burned, and about just superficial out; the bullet came wound where influ- a flesh He talked he was under some; wound. liquor my impression no dif- ence that he was point person. ordinary not at the He was ferent than the SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. 710' v. Cockriel. clearly; staggering; he articulated ration- talked ally. only thing planned remember is that *10 paper for time he had a in his which it some hand essence of he the officer. don’t know as to the to I read paper why thought the the he did it. cause —the way normally person. he he a sane acted was prosecution de-
In the evidence for the is that short, planned bought revolver, the deed and fendant “lying came her in wait” for wife when she to home his Carey at house.
The evidence is voluminous: it is thus for the defense Attorney-General: by summarized behalf Covert, defendant, R. “F'red witness been at home that defendant had his testified minister, mentally de- deficient; to several times and seemed poison to other acts take or do threatened to fendant had condition was worse suicide; which mean his mental would army he before from than was after he came back get have and would lost went; defendant would sometimes people g*et came to home; to he often to ask how at wife and his sister house of his wife’s very home; be at his own wife would time'his cry back wife come for his walk floor would him. been a he had mother testified “Defendant’s never boy that he was childhood; ever since sullen morose pe- always had he had and that able to learn in school trou- his domestic since become worse culiarities ; developed, afraid at all times she was bles had kill himself. would by the defendant offered witnesses
“Several other opinion, in- defendant their that, in also testified offered or three witnesses two some However, sane. be sane.” him to believed behalf of defendant specialists three appointed a committee The court the de- examine psychopathy, diseases, mental or G. sanity, Ludwick, Wilse A. L. Doctors fendant as together examined who Gibson, T. Edward Robinson and thorough Their examination defendant. APRIL TERM, Vol. 314] v. Cockriel. interesting, go into de-
their evidence we need hut of the tail. Dr. Ludwick that the defendant charged was insane at the shot and time was to have specialists wife, killed the other were of while opinion that he sane. assigned appellant’s
I. 'Error is in the refusal application There were continuance. four affidavits support application: filed Min the first Mrs. nie the other Covert, sister; contimance p^ree Minnie Mrs. Rosa Mrs. Covert and mother. The first the defendant’s affidavit Cockriel, diligent pro had made effort to effect she Washington, C.; records D. cure the ex-soldiers that those records show that injuries army mind received unbalanced *11 taking depositions require in the that would sixty thirty Washington, take at least which would days that facts transcribed; the were the *12 admitting
II. It is in insisted that court erred testimony Merrill the witnesses and Gr.C. Come because Benton that the defendant sane, opinion know did him and did not state Evidence. they based facts and circumstances on which qualified express to and conclusions, their opinion were not acquaint sanity. previous to his Come no in is set out, ance with defendant. Plis evidence Yol. APRIL TERM,
State v. Cockriel.
part, in the
of the
statement
case. Benton testified he
year,
very
had known the defendant about a
well;
had talked with
that
him;
from his observation and
knowledge
say
of the defendant he would'
he was sane.
lay
testify
The
that
rule is
where a
witness is called to
an individual is
that
insane, must first state the facts
on which he
that
bases
conclusion. “The rule
other-
is
testify
wise, however, where the witness
to
is called
person
inquiry,
whose mental condition
under
is
[State
sane.”
Liolios,
1, 14,
Mo.
III. in the court erred objection peti evidence, over the of the defendant, the against tion for divorce filed defendant by deceased; allegations that the therein were not made in the petition. presence prejudicial. divorse of the defendant and were The defendant Mr. Chilcott, the asked petition, grounds who drew the what for the charges petition divorce and Chilcott read the Only part petition the defendant. was admit objection in evidence ted and was no there its admis preserved exceptions. sion. It is not in the hill of assignment IY. The fourth is that the court erred permitting “highly improper judicial questions” the cross-examination of failing witness Fred R. Covert and in reprimand prosecuting attorney. objectionquestions. cross-examination: Mr. witness, Covert, married principal wit one of sister, many for -the facts nesses defense. had testified in which he circumstances on based his and sanity; he en mind was addled when that defendant’s good army not so when in 1917 that was tered the that the defend the close of war, returned at since return. wit ant been insane gospel prominent ness, who is a minister of the *13 714 SUPREME COURT OP MISSOURI. v.
State asked if he or the church, was defendant’s mother or application put have sister ever to the defendant made asylum, negative. in the in an insane he answered then Witness was asked: ‘‘ you the first time Q1. So learned was insane was charge brought? had been after murder A. N,o, this sir. only “Q. have in That is defense could you isn’t Doctor? And that is the reason it, case are claiming insane?” now he is object said:
Defendant’s counsel “I to in- counsel’s making prejudice sisting damaging on statements reprimand jury, the court to coun- fair-minded and ask repeatedly doing sel for it.” this action and exception “Proceed.” An was saved. The Court: insanity only fact defense that The is that was defendant made. had testified that was Witnesses I said I wife; do;” “that is what he shot his bought purpose for that that he the revolver objected damaging planned it. Counsel to do probably no statements. there were statements; prejudicial. question unfair meant that objectionable argumentative, being but it was as prejudicial. assignment the trial this cause V. last is that justice, complete miscarriage the de- and that was fendant’s incompetent ignor- grossly appeared Judy coun- Mr. law. ant Miscarriage of Justice. If this most trial. sel for the to the at- been called contention
unusual trial motion for new trial court tention were hold there have to properly we would us, before support it. nothing in the record support contention, of this cite in Counsel App. the defendant that case In 93. Jones, Mo. degree and sentenced first murder in the convicted of on the filed trial was hanged. a new A motion ignorance, gross ground due conviction that the attorney. incompetence imbecility APRIL TERM, Yol. 314] y. Cocteriel. appeal it that, -motion was overruled. On was held showing overruling made, the court erred *14 accordingly ordered. On the
motion and a new trial was
again
was
mur-
trial
of
second
convicted
penalty
degree
in
the death
im-
der
the first
was
posed.
appeal.
on
Jones,
This
See State v.
was affirmed
The rule is thus stated: trial incompetency great granted counsel where sois prejudiced prevented fairly that defendant is from presenting trial defense, new sometimes granted part on because of some serious error attorney in of the case. But a trial such the conduct new attorney’s necessarily not follow either from does incompetency neglect. been or This latter rule has applied counsel to the failure of to intro- defendant’s witnesses, duce certain to his failure to summon evidence, except ruling or an instruction, to a to his failure negligence resulting in failure make a defendant’s of the case to the to submission court, statement jury argument, de- without the conduct of the grounds. improper new trial be Nor will a fense on attorney granted ground solely on mentally sick, tired, or or that was was unbalanced 1145.] p. sec. [16 or intoxicated.” J.C. in contention
The that defendant’s competent first the defense made for the to conduct not to the attention court; time this it called court motion for done trial new trial the in supra. trial court v. learned Jones, cognizant con defense was which the of the manner purpose motion It of a ducted. is elemental that court of the trial for a trial attention new is to call irregularities occurring at the trial to all errors opportunity may its own to correct appeal. order have an v. necessity [State errors and to avoid appeal 1026.] will On an court 280 S. Burns, W. attention not called to an error thus consider SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. v. appearing except errors face of the trial court, (8).] Knight, proper. 278 S. [State the record W. assignments foregoing are of errors all VI. The appellant’s appearing brief. assigns however, errors trial,
The motion new assigns giving error in considered. that have been overruling the evi- the demurrer to instructions and in dence. properly over- to the evidence demurrer corpus proof is, of the delicti,
ruled. The wife and of the defendant’s of tlie defendant’s death agency causing con- death, her was clear and criminal insanity the burden of ; defense was clusive. The sole sustaining upon That defendant. rested that defense proper jury, instruc- under of fact for the was an issue *15 case we of the whole careful consideration tions. On a only substantial there was are of the that support evidence on but that verdict, evidence to prosecution. preponderated in favor that issue Insanity and sometimes disease an insidious testimony, re- diagnosis. Dr. Ludwick In his difficult of hospital he insane was for the to a that on a visit lated premises by for about an assistant about the shown thanking for his cour- assistant three hours. When replied: inquired assistant name. The his he tesies, a reincarnation “They Taliaferro, but am me call a him Spain.” considered Dr. Ludwick Don Carlos of paranoiac. authority. good following related on instance is distinguished of this member Gantt, B. late a
James War, came to shortly close of Civil after the court, brought action County Georgia. an Henry from surprised justly and dis- promissory was note and a. de- jury for a verdict appointed returned when the office to his house way court from fendant. On his dejection, noting his in- who, B., Dr. he met friend practice law quired couldn’t cause. Gantt promissory note; get on a a verdict he couldn’t Missouri; APRIL TERM, Vol.
State v. Cockriel. library Georgia. return he inquired sell his and Dr. B. jurors learning’ names and that Mr. Armstrong told Gantt then foreman, that Armstrong insanity treating suggested and that a trial. The file motion new motion filed Gantt put Armstrong on the stand an- and Gantt witness who questions coherently all and swered was too much for suggestion suspecting At of Dr. B. Gantt. meaning relevancy, Armstrong if its or Gantt any connection with the Secret Service. wit- passion instantly like ness into and raved a maniac. flew The motion was sustained. singular years ago many
A instance occurred County. Schuyler Andrew Court of The wife of Probate country preacher, a farmer and filed an informa- Hicks, charging tion in that of unsound court, that Hicks was pray- incapable managing his affairs, mind provided ing by inquiry the statute, had as inqui- 1919. At the now Section Revised Statutes neighbors that Hicks sition about a dozen of testified they was insane. On cross-examination testified most successful owned a 400-acre farm and ITieks they neighborhood, farmer trader indicating insan- fact or unable to state a circumstance ity, re- Hicks testified, insane. but insisted poor boy, beginning etc.; lating history, etc., acquired, frugality industry he had thrift, improved farm. The cross-examination and stocked his very Finally prosecuting dra- was futile. *16 matically you John the are “Elder Hicks, said: Instantly Baptist?” of countenance Hicks’ fashion changed. Throwing arms above head eyes blazing “Before maniac, like a screamed: of God, in the isle Patmos.” insanity awas the defense of have
But, said, we jury question conclusive the verdict is of fact for on that issue. SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. Coekriel. given by
VI. instructions the court are challenged appellant. .the brief counsel for the instructions, There are ten in addition to the forms printed covering pages. They thirteen verdict, follow frequently approved They forms fully and need not be set out. jury questions arising all
informed the lawof guidance necessary in the case for their in return- presumption ing verdict, doubt, reasonable proof burden and the defenses of in- innocence, sanity clearly charges and intoxication. The indictment crime in the defendant with the of murder first de- gree Finding proper verdict is in form. no er- judg- prejudicial defendant, ror record Hailey, affirmed. concurs. ment is G., opinion foregoing PER CURIAM : —The Higbee, adopted as the All C., of the court. judges concur. before notes conclusively shown other wit be above shown cannot granted be if a continuance affiant available; nesses that diligent secure these records or this make effort to would be and that affiant time, evidence within reasonable prove the will that above mentioned lieves the records herein set out. facts was the affidavit not state that This does defendant military in- the in juries, service of States or what United any, con- he there is the bald therein; if received ‘‘ injuries army which un- clusion that received ” that the balanced his mind. It is stated injuries at from these time not recovered de- hand, R. Covert, On other Fred homicide. for the brother-in-law, defendant, fendant’s witness the defendant at the trial had known that testified army years,; years; in two ten he was joined army 1917,; addled when was mind nearly mind blind that when returned he away; good he went that he was sick as when year; back for more than a he came and unable to work SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI. v. about six months after armistice and he was ordered hospital they talking back to the for treatment and were eyeballs taking yet discharged. about out; he was not apparent injuries It defendant suffered military eyes while service were to his that from injuries all evidence he recovered from these engaged before he married deceased. He in work required good eyesight; he was a driver reckless City driving had been arrested Kansas ex- speed sought cess of limit. evidence for was not shown to material. residing The other affidavits relate to witnesses City traveling Kansas who at the time outside of city. the mately knew is averred the defendant inti present, if testify and, that he of un alleged They sound mind the date homicide. lay fail to state facts which these witnesses based tbe respects, conclusion of in this insanity and, and other comply requirements do not with the 3997, Section relating Revised Statutes 1919, But, continuances. waiving produced that, the defendant numerous witnesses long at the trial who testified that he insane at and prior homicide, so that the evidence of the absent Washington and the witnesses records at would have merely been No made cumulative. case was for a con granting tinuance under the statute. The a continu largely ance is a matter within the discretion of the appear court. It does not that the court its dis abused application. Tracy, overruling cretion in [State cited.] 294 Mo. 372, 380, S. W. cases