State v. Douglas, 258 Mo. 281

258 Mo. 281 | Mo. | 1914

Lead Opinion

BROWN, J. —

Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Oregon county fixing his punishment at twelve years in the penitentiary.

For a consideration of such issues as are here presented it will only he necessary to give a very brief summary of the testimony.

The evidence on the part of the State tended to prove that defendant premeditatedly shot and killed one J. Gk Burnette, in Oregon county, Missouri, on August 29, 1909. The evidence of premeditation consisted mostly in the purchase hy defendant of a revolver and some cartridges loaded with steel bullets a few days prior to the tragedy. This revolver defendant carried on his person, and with it the alleged crime was committed.

On the part of defendant the evidence tended to prove that deceased had made several threats against the defendant. These threats did not extend to the taking of life, but only to a desire to whip or stamp defendant. According to the testimony of defendant and his wife, deceased frequently spoke to them of his ability to use the weapons with which nature had provided him; that on one occasion he knocked a man down and stamped the man thus assaulted so severely that one of his ears had to he sewed on and that he was confined to his bed for several.weeks.

There were no eye witnesses to the killing except defendant and his wife. They testified that deceased came to defendant’s home to settle an account growing out of a crop which deceased had cultivated on defendant’s land, a part of which crop had been sold. Defendant being absent, deceased sat down on a small box near defendant’s house and waited for him. When defendant returned the parties exchanged accounts, and, according to defendant’s evidence, when they began discussing the settlement, deceased became very angry, jumped up from the box and struck at defendant, saying as he did so: “I am going to stomp you into the ground. ’ ’ Defendant claimed that he dodged the blow so struck by deceased, and, believing that he was in imminent danger of great personal injury, sliot deceased in the breast five times, inflicting wounds from which he died in a few minutes.

The evidence on the part of defendant and his wife was somewhat weakened by the finding of blood near the box where deceased) had been sitting, and the further fact that some of the bullets fired into the breast of deceased ranged downward as though he was sitting and the defendant standing when such shots were fired.

There was enough evidence to support the verdict of conviction; while if the jury had believed the defendant and his wife, they would have been justified in returning a verdict of not guilty, on the theory that defendant was in imminent peril, or had good reason to believe that he was in imminent danger of great personal injury, when he shot deceased.

For reversal defendant relies upon the failure of the court to give instructions defining the law of presumption of innocence arid reasonable doubt.

OPINION.

Doubtnable I. The defendant did not, in writing or orally, request any instructions, but in his motion for new trial complains of the alleged failure of the trial court to instruct on the legal presumption of defendant’s innocence, and the law of reasonable doubt.

There were, in fact, no such instructions given by the court. The defendant introduced evidence tending to prove his previous good character, and on this evidence the court gave the following instruction:

“If defendant has proven to your reasonable satisfaction that prior to the alleged difficulty he sustained, a good reputation as a law-abiding citizen, then you should consider that fact in passing on the question of his guilt or innocence, as the law presumes that one whose character is good is less likely to commit a crime than one whose character is not good, but if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from all the evidence in this case including that of good character that defendant is guilty on this charge, his good character will not justify or excuse him. ’ ’

The court gave an instruction on the presumption arising from the intentional use by defendant of a deadly weapon upon a Antal part of deceased. In fact,' its instructions are not objectionable, unless a specific instruction on reasonable doubt was necessary for the information of the jury in giving their verdict, as required by section 5231, Revised Statutes 1909.

The doctrine of presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt are so closely related that it has been held that it is not reversible error to omit to instruct on the Iuav of presumption of innocence if the court has fully instructed on the subject of reasonable doubt. [State v. Maupin, 196 Mo. 164, l. c. 175-6; State v. Dudley, 245 Mo. 177, l. c. 184.] The doctrine that a defendant is entitled to an instruction directing the jury that unless his guilt is proven. .beyond a reasonable doubt the jury shall give him the benefit of such doubt and acquit him, is so interwoven in our jurisprudence that it has become an essential element of law in every criminal case. The defendant is just as much entitled to this instruction as he is to a trial by jury; for if. the court may direct a jury to convict a defendant, then the constitutional right to a trial by jury would amount to little or nothing. In discussing this point in the' case of State v. Gonce, 79 Mo. 600, Ewing, C., said:

“That part of the instruction as to a reasonable doubt is usually asked and given on the part of the State. . . . Even though it may appear to the court there can be no.grounds for a reasonable doubt, yet the accused must have the opinion of the triers of the fact upon that question. This instruction should have been given for the defendant, and the court committed error in refusing it. ’ ’

On this point also see State v. Fannon, 158 Mo. 149, and State v. Gullette, 121 Mo. 447, l. c. 458.

When a defendant is entitled to an instruction limiting or modifying the effect of evidence which has been legally introduced he must prepare and request such instruction; otherwise, it will not constitute reversible error for the court to omit instructions on that point, because the issue thus raised, while it may be helpful to defendant, is one of a collateral nature and not indispensable in arriving at a correct verdict. [State v. Starr, 244 Mo. 161.]

In discussing the instructions which should ■ be given by the court on its own motion “whether requested or not,” KAnnish, J., in the late case of State v. Weinberg, 245 Mo. l. c. 575, said:

“Instructions presenting the facts constitutive of the offense charged or of any grade thereof shown by the testimony, the punishment authorized to be inflicted in case of a conviction, instructions upon the presumption of innocence andi reasonable doubt, and good character when put in issue by the testimony, and also instructions presenting the law, upon each defense interposed by the accused, are necessary for the information of the jury. ’ ’

We adhere to the views expressed by Judge Kennish, as above quoted, and unless the doctrine of reasonable doubt was sufficiently expressed in the instruction touching good character as hereinbefore quoted the cause must be reversed.

The Attorney-General insists that as the words “reasonable doubt” were used in the instruction before quoted], it was not necessary to give a separate instruction on that point — that the law really contemplates that only one instruction shall be given in a criminal case which shall cover all the rules of law necessary for the guidance of a jury. Without deciding whether this theory is correct or not, the law (Sec. 5231, R. S. 1909) speaks of instructions, and it is self-evident that the directions of the court can be more readily understood where the different subjects discussed are divided into separate instructions, or separate paragraphs of the same instruction.

The instruction now in judgment and before quoted blended the subjects of good character and reasonable doubt in such a manner as to minimize the effect of any doubt which might have existed in the minds of the jury regarding defendant’s guilt. The court should have unequivocally told the jury that the burdexx of proving defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rested upoxi the State, and that if they entertained a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt they should give him the benefit of such doubt and acquit him. For the error of the court, in omitting to give a correct instruction on the doctrine of reasonable doubt its judgment must be reversed.

Motion for New Trial. . II. The learned Attorney-General insists that even if the instructions as given do not properly declare the law on the subject of reasonable doubt, the error was not properly preserved by defendant, as he did not, at the trial, specifically except to the failure of the court to instruct on that point. He makes an earnest appeal for the overruling of the decision of this court in the case of State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271. The only proposition of law announced in the Conway case about which the writer has any misgivings is expressed in the following language (l. c. 292):

“If satisfied from the record that there has been a failure to instruct the jury upon a question which goes to the fundamental rights of the defendant, and that by such failure injustice may have been done or a verdict returned different than if such failure had not occurred, this court, in the interest of justice, will not hesitate to grant a new trial, though the question should be presented here for the first time.”

My reason for doubting the correctness of the foregoing pronouncement is that section 5231, Revised Statutes 1909, says that a failure to give such instructions as are necessary for the information of juries in giving their verdict in felony eases “shall be good cause, token the defendant is found guilty, for setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a neiv trial.” This court does not set aside verdicts and grant new trials on appeal, except as an incident to reversing judgments upon which such verdicts are predicated. Therefore, in my opinion, the words from said section 5231, supra, which we have italicized, pertain and refer exclusively to the procedure in trial courts, and as the law requires motions for new trial to be specific (See. 5285, R. S. 1909) it becomes the duty of a defendant convicted of a felony to call the trial court’s attention to the specific points upon which it has neglected to give proper instructions.

Exceptions. III. Regarding the further contention of the learned Attorney-General that the Conway case, supra, is erroneous in that it enables a defendailq review in this court the failure of the trial court to give necessary instructions, notwithstanding such defendant has not excepted to such failure at the time other instructions were given, and has raised the point for the first time in his motion for new trial, we will say that this very issue received a most thorough consideration when the opinion in the Conway case was prepared. While section 2081, Revised Statutes 1909, was not mentioned in that opinion, it was in fact considered, as were also the statutes of other states similar in form to our own, as well as the constructions that have been placed upon such foreign statutes. The opinion in the Conway case was held up for some weeks and the whole subject was exhaustively investigated by each member of this Division of the court. The opinion prepared by Judge Kennish who, on account of his wide experience, pre-eminent ability and judicial acumen, was fully equipped to weigh the matter from every conceivable point of view, is entitled to great weight.

We quite agree with the Attorney-General that errors occurring in the trial of criminal cases should be preserved in the same manner as in civil cases. This is the general law as prescribed by section 5245, supra, and applies to the saving of exceptions to all errors where some other rule of law is not specifically applicable.

It is axiomatic that where there is a statute which deals only with one phase of a subject, and that subject is also governed by a general law, the provisions of the statute which deals only with one phase of the subject will prevail over the general law, in so far as there is conflict between such statutes. [1 Lewis’s Sutherland, Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), p. 532; State v. Railroad, 239 Mo. l. c. 281; Folk v. St. Louis, 250 Mo. 116, l. c. 136.]

It is apparent that prior to 1901 it was the duty of a defendant to suggest to the court the giving of such instructions as it had not of its own motion given. It. is also equally apparent that the General Assembly, in its zeal to force the courts to accord a full and fair trial to persons accused of felonies, removed from tbe defendant the burden of aiding the court in preparing instructions, and permits Mm to remain silent on the subject of instructions-, if the evidence raises no collateral issue.

The contention of the Attorney-General that a defendánt must at the trial, and before the cause is submitted to the jury, make or save specific exceptions to the action of the court in failing to instruct on the points which have by the court been omitted, would be equivalent to placing upon the defendant the duty of informing the trial court of the point of law upon which it had failed to instruct. This the law does not contemplate.

Laws relating to crimes and criminal procedure are liberally construed in favor of the defendant, and strictly construed against the State; and I cannot bring myself to believe that the lawmakers would intentionally relieve a defendant of the duty of requesting certain instructions, and at the same time leave him under obligation to specifically except to the omission of the very instructions which he is not-under obligation to request. Putting it in a little plainer language, section 5231, supra, having specifically relieved defendant of the duty to request certain necessary instructions, by the same token relieves him of the duty of suggesting the giving of such instructions. The position assumed by the Attorney-General calls for a reversal of this- rule of construction, and requires a defendant to speak when the instructions are-given, notwithstanding the statute clearly contemplates that he may remain silent at that important moment, and yet reserve his right to secure a new trial if any necessary declarations of law are omitted by the court.

The Attorney-General calls our attention to section 2081, of the- Civil Code, Revised Statutes 1909, which says that “no exceptions shall be taken in an appeal or writ of error to any proceedings in the circuit court, except such as shall have been expressly decided by such court.”

This is a part of the g’eneral law applicable to all appeals, but it would not be seriously contended that said last quoted section would prevent a defendant from objecting for the first time in this court to an indictment which does not charg’e the defendant with any crime, even though the trial court had made no ruling on the sufficiency of such indictment. [State v. Levy, 119 Mo. 434, l. c. 437; State v. Meysenburg, 171 Mo. 1, l. c. 27 and 51.] Section 5231, supra, having made it the duty of the trial court to give to the jury all necessary instructions without suggestion or request from defendant, and having further cast upon said court in felony cases the duty to grant a new trial when such necessary instructions are omitted, said section completely supersedes the general law prescribing how errors of that kind shall be preserved and considered.

Our General Assembly may throw around the life and liberty of the citizen whatever safeguards it deems proper, even though such safeguards are inconvenient and render it more difficult for the State to enforce the criminal laws. By enacting section 5231, Revised Statutes 1909', the Legislature has made it necessary, before the life or liberty of a citizen is taken away by judicial process, that the jury to which the case is submitted shall be correctly instructed on all essential “questions of law arising in the case.” Therefore, it is just as necessary to so charge the jury as it is to present a valid indictment or information against the defendant. The only difference, so far as the defendant is concerned, is that when the indictment or information is fatally defective he can secure a reversal of the judgment without calling attention to the insufficiency of such indictment or information in his motion for new trial, while if there he a failure to instruct on some essential question of law arising in the case, he must give the court an opportunity to correct such error by a motion for new trial, in which such error is specifically pointed out.

It was well understood when the opinion in the Conway case was. written that it conflicted with the views expressed in many other prior decisions of this court, particularly the cases of State v. McCarver, 194 Mo. 717; State v. Espenschied, 212 Mo. 215, l. c. 223; State v. Goldsby, 215 Mo. 48, l. c. 57; State v. Wilson, 225 Mo. 503, l. c. 518-9; and State v. Tucker, 232 Mo. 1, l. c. 15. In so far as the opinion in the case at bar conflicts with the conclusions reached in the cases last cited they are expressly overruled.

For the failure of the trial court to properly instruct the jury on the question of reasonable doubt its judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for new trial.

Walker, P. J., concurs; Paris, J., concurs in opinion filed.

---

Concurrence Opinion

CONCURRING OPINION.

FARIS, J. —

I fully concur in the result reached in the opinion of my learned brother Brown in this ease, but I cannot agree with the views; expressed in paragraph 3 of his opinion so far as said paragraph and the inference contained in paragraph 2 of said opinion hold that either the amendment of 18819 or that of 1901 to section 5231, Revised Statutes 1909, has relieved the defendant from the necessity of interposing any exceptions to instructions given by the court, or to the failure of the court to instruct upon all questions of law arising in the case, or upon any one of such questions.

Prior to 1901 the clause of said section 5231 pertinent to this discussion, read thus:

“Fourth: The court must instruct the jury in writing upon all questions of law arising in the case which are necessary for their information in giving their verdict; which instructions shall include, whenever necessary, the subjects of good character and reasonable doubt; and a failure to so instruct in cases of felony shall be good cause, when the defendant is found guilty, for setting aside the verdict of the jury and granting a new trial.” [R. S. 1899, sec. 2627.]

In 1901 the Legislature prefixed to this clause the words “whether requested or not;” so that in my view the necessity, as a condition precedent to review, no longer existed, requiring defendant to either prepare and offer an instruction, or to specifically request the court to instruct, upon such issues in the case as were bottomed upon questions of law arising in the case which are necessary for the information of the jury in giving their verdict, or upon the questions of reasonable doubt and good character, whenever necessary.

Prior to 1901, when the amendment above mentioned was made, it was- the law in this State and in .every other state where the common law prevailed, that exceptions to instructions had to be taken at the time the court gave them or neglected, or refused to. give them, as the case might be, in order to preserve for review objections thereto in criminal cases, just' as in civil cases. [State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. l. c. 344; State v. Foster, 115 Mo. l. c. 451.] I shall not burden these views with long citations of authorities, but the cases upholding the above statement as to the absolute necessity of preserving by exceptions taken an objection to instructions refused or given, or neglected to be given, as a condition precedent to review, will be found collated in 12 Cyc. 666 and 667, and 12 Cyc. 815 and 820. Unless the addition of the four words .above quoted has served to change the rule, this is still the law. ' In what wise is impossible for so slight a change of verbiage to have so far-reaching an effect?

To go back just a little ways and pick up the thread; of the argument, it may be said to be so well settled in our practice as to be fundamental that matters of exception can only be preserved in a bill of exceptions and kept alive for appellate review by a motion for a new trial. [State v. Libby, 203 Mo. 596.] Likewise it is well-settled, that instructions given or refused, or the failure or neglect to give proper instructions in a criminal case, are pure matters of exception and can be preserved for review only by exceptions and by incorporating them into a bill of exceptions. [State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. l. c. 344; State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; State v. Ray, 53 Mo. 345; State v. Pints, 64 Mo. 317; State v. Williams, 77 Mo. 310; State v. McDonald, 85 Mo. l. c. 543; State v. West, 157 Mo. 309; State v. Huff, 161 Mo. 459.] No one will contend that what we call for convenience the “record proper” embraces instructions given in a case, either criminal or civil. It seems to me ‘that it is utterly impossible to take the view that instructions preserve themselves in the record without exceptions made and saved thereto, unless we say that in a criminal case instructions are a part of the record proper. It is fundamental and manifest that they are not. Without a proper .bill of exceptions, kept alive by a sufficient motion for a new trial, neither this court nor any other appellate court, where the common law prevails, would ever for a moment consider error arising upon an instruction unless a plain statute so commanded. This court long prior to the amendment of 1901 and the addition of the provision that a req%\,est for instructions on the matters therein specified should no longer he necessary, had held that exceptions to instructions must be preserved in order to make objections touching them reviewable upon appeal, as an absolute condition precedent, without which no review here could be obtained. This court from 1901 until the case of State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271, had uniformly so held. It had: also held likewise from the very beginning up to the date of the amendment of 1901. No well-founded doubt through all the years until the Conway case was decided, ever troubled this court upon this question, and we uniformly refused to take heed of objections in anywise affecting instructions when such objections were urged here unless they were preserved in a bill of exceptions with specific objections and exceptions urged thereto, which bill of exceptions and specific objections and exceptions to the instructions themselves were kept alive by a sufficient and timely motion for a new trial. [State v. Grimes, 101 Mo. 188; State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147; State v. Inks, 135 Mo. 678; State v. Nelson, 225 Mo. 551; State v. Kretschmar, 232 Mo. 29; State v. Tucker, 232 Mo. 1; State v. Urspruch, 191 Mo. 43; State v. Sykes, 248 Mo. 708; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 202; State v. Harris, 199 Mo. 716; State v. Jones, 191 Mo. 653; State v. Morgan, 196 Mo. 177, and cases cited, supra; State v. Gordon, 196 Mo. 185.] Likewise we held, erroneously, I think, that no valid objection to the failure of the court to instruct “upon all of the law in the case,” would avail, unless defendant specifically embraced in his objection and exception, the precise point in which the instructions given by the court were lacking. [State v. Barnett, 203 Mo. l. c. 658; State v. Weatherman, 202 Mo. 6.]

It will be noted, therefore, upon an examination of the cases, that when the amendment of 1901 was made, this court was uniformly requiring timely exceptions touching instructions as a condition precedent to review. It cannot, I think, be successfully contended that the Legislature merely by the addition of the words “lufoether reqioested or nob” either specifically or impliedly abrogated the necessity for such exceptions. The Legislature had an opportunity of so saying in express words when they amended this statute in 1901. Since they failed to say it either expressly or by far-fetched implication, we ought not to say it for them. A careful reading of the clause under discussion will show that while the failure to instruct upon all questions of law arising in the case and necessary for the information of the jury, and upon the subjects of good character and reasonable doubt, whenever necessary, is a good cause for setting aside the verdict of the piry and for granting a new tiral, it is not said in that clause that it is good cau,se or any cause for our reversing the case and remanding it. This view is suggested in the learned opinion herein by Judge Brown. This court, in such a case as this, is but a court of errors, and as Judge Brown well says, we have neither the power of setting aside verdicts, nor of granting new trials. We can only order the trial court to do these things. This view still leaves us in a case like this a court of errors, and we have formulated by our decisions, or, the Legislature has formulated for us in statutes enacted by it, certain rules by which the errors urged before us are preserved for our review. I cannot read in the clause of section 5231 under discussion, any intent whatever on the part of the Legislature to change in anywise any of these general rules by which objections to instructions are preserved for review. The amendment of 1901 merely changed the law so as to render unnecessary any request for an instruction upon any and ‘ ‘ all questions of law arising in the case, which are necessary for their [the jury’s] information in giving their verdict,” including reasonable doubt, and when necessary good character. As to these matters the trial court had put upon him the duty of instructing sua sponte correctly upon the law. If he failed to do so, or if he erred in so doing, it was his duty to set aside the verdict and grant defendant a new trial. If he failed to so instruct, and likewise refused thereupon to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant defendant a new trial, it then upon appeal becomes onr duty (if according to other rules centuries old and not affected by the slight amendment by the words “whether requested! or not,” the matter was properly saved for our review), to order the court nisi to grant a new trial. At the time of the several amendments of the clause in question, the rule as to the necessity both for an exception taken at the time of giving the instructions and for a motion for a new trial preserving and keeping alive such exception, is well stated in the case of State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. l. c. 111, where it is said: “The instructions given by the court seem fairly to cover the issue joined between the State and the defendants, and if they did not, there is no statement in the motion that the court failed to give all proper and needful instructions. So that, if the court did fail to instruct the jury upon all questions of law arising in the case which were necessary for the information of the jury in giving their verdict, exception should have been saved at the time such failure occurred, and the point should have been preserved in the motion for a new trial, and this for the reason that exceptions in criminal causes occupy the same footing- as do those in civil matters, and can only be preserved by the same methods of procedure. [State v. DeMosse, 98 Mo. l. c. 344; State v. Foster, 115 Mo. 448.]”

Por these reasons I cannot agree either that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to a review here of an instruction given -or refused, or of the failure of the court to give an instruction, unless he lodged a timely exception with the trial court, and unless he preserved1 such exception in his motion for a new trial. I am not saying that he should request specific instructions upon such matters as are set out in section 5231, that -is to say, as to any “questions of law arising in the case which are necessary for the information of- the jury in giving their verdict, ’ ’ or as to the subjects of good character and reasonable doubt, when the latter issues are properly presented by the evidence. I also agree that the questions of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence should always be given to the jury, but I am saying that the attention of the court at the time the instructions are given to the jury ought to be called to his alleged: failure or neglect to instruct upon any of the above matters; not necessarily specifically, nor by preparing or presenting a written instruction, but by a general exception — for example, for that “the instructions as given by the court are not the law of the case,”' or that “the instructions given do not 'embrace all of the law of the case,” or that “the court has not instructed upon all questions of law arising in the case and which are necessary for the information of the jury in giving their verdict;” or in such other apposite way as to call the attention of the trial court to his failure to comply with the statutory mandate herein discussed; and this exception should be kept alive by a proper motion for a new trial. The defendant ought not to be permitted (and in my view the clause under discussion does not in its present form permit, nor has it ever expressly, or, impliedly permitted, or invited the defendant) to lie in wait for the court. It might well be that instructions covering all the phases of the law involved, and upon good character and reasonable doubt, were actually prepared by the court, and yet not given for some physical reason, as for that they were lost or misplaced. An exception timely lodged would ordinarily remind: the court to remedy the inadvertent default or neglect, or enable him to 'supply an instruction prepared, but mayhap lost from the files, and thus avert a mistrial. I agree with what is said in State v. Weinberg, 245 Mo. l. c. 575, and quoted in the opinion of Judge Brown, defining what instructions are comprehended by the clause under discussion, and as to such no request either in writing or orally is necessary to be made, but when the court does not give such instruction, or gives them erroneously, the defendant is not relieved from the necessity of lodging a general exception to the court’s error. As to instructions upon what have been called “collateral matters,” that is, such matters as are not embraced in the definition above referred to, my views are that a specific request must be made; that the defendant should by his counsel either write them and offer them to the court with a request that they be given, or that he should specifically request the court to give the same and save a proper exception to the court’s refusal, and keep his exception alive by a proper motion for a new trial, before reversible error can be bottomed upon the alleged error of the trial court. Neither in my opinion does it avail to go back to the amendment of 1889, where it was first provided that the failure of the court to instruct “upon all questions of law arising in the case,” should in a felony case be good cause for setting aside a verdict of guilty. It may be conceded with all frankness that a departure as between the rule in misdemeanors and felonies, is logically inferable from the language of the amendment of 1889 and the rule as to non-direction in misdemeanor trials which has since been uniformly followed. But barring a legislative pronouncement to this effect (and there is none anywhere), does this obviate the rule requiring exceptions to be lodged in the trial court as a condition precedent to the review of any and all matters not of the record proper? [State v. Stevens, 242 Mo. 439.]

Strictly speaking, what place have instructions in a bill of exceptions unless they get into the- bill by virtue of the fact that exceptions are saved to them? ITow else do they legally and properly become parts of the bill of exceptions unless they be excepted to? In the instant ease, objections were made and general —very general — exceptions were timely interposed by defendant to the instructions given by the trial court. These objections and exceptions were kept alive in the motion for a new trial, where it was specifically urged that “the court erred in not instructing the jury as to the presumption of innocence of defendant and the law in relation thereto.”

In my view the many safeguards provided by law and practice for a defendant’s safety considered; the fact that in every felony trial if defendant be too indigent to hire counsel, or too friendless to have counsel hired for him, it is the duty of the court to appoint counsel to represent him; and the fact that by divers provisions of our procedure he is allowed vast advantages over the State, render any other view dangerous, as calculated to provide holes for the escape of the guilty, rather than shields for the protection of the innocent. For this reason I concur in reversing this case, but I do not agree in what is said in paragraph III thereof, and so much of it as would obviate the necessity of saving exceptions to instructions given or refused, or neglected to be given, as a condition precedent to review. In so far as the case of State v. Conway, 241 Mo. 271, is in conflict with the views expressed herein, upon the questions of the necessity of saving exceptions to instructions- and of preserving such exceptions in the motion for a new trial, that case should be followed no longer.