*1 1921. APRIL TERM, Appellant. THE STATE v. WALKER LEE, May Two, Division 1921. Capital Supreme RAPE: Case: Defendant No Counsel in
1. Court: Duty prosecution rape, of Court. In was a for where guilty appeal on his and sentenced to death and to the found represented by Supreme counsel, Court was the court will thorough make examination of the law and facts to ascertain a impartial defendant has had a trial and to de- fair whether upon he has convicted substantial evidence. termine whether case, -: made Indictment. In while no has been 2. this assault indictment, Supreme upon examined same the Court the the proper it be in form. finds to jury given -: Given. The 3. Instructions instructions objected by by to defendant as to the trial were not either court they clearly, properly fairly substance; as form or governed jurors by to the be in ar- law which the declared riving giving verdict no error in instructions at their there was jury. the to prosecution Exception. -: In for Failure Instruct: No 4. appear rape, the record that defendant it where does given appear any those nor does instructions aside any request the trial court instruct was of made questions properly case, covered outside of the other branch the complaint given, his defendant’s motion the instructions jury upon failed instruct a new for merit; so, offense, especially phases no is without alleged court, exception-was non-direction saved n respect said matter. Prosecuting Attorney. -: Statements Where defend- Trial: objection by defendant, rape, prosecuted while for ant was prosecuting being empaneled, jury to a at- was charged raping torney was “with white woman” that defendant present merit, being the woman court and testi- without objection having fying sustained and the court case say theory indictment did not she was white that the woman say prosecutor jury having he could told but a white she was woman. show would evidence SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, State v. Lee. Copy -:6. -: Names Witnesses Not Indictment. prosecution rape, quash In a where motion to the indict- asked, ment was filed defendant and no continuance it was *2 objection testimony not error to overrule defendant’s ground several witnesses on the their en- names not were copy defendant, dorsed on the of the indictment furnished Supreme showing record in the Court file the indictment on in the had the names of case such witnesses endorsed thereon and alleged copy being produced not in evidence. Original 7. -: -: Names Witnesses Not on Indictment: Competent prosecution rape When. In for it is not error for objection permit trial court over defendant’s to witnesses to testify original not whose names endorsed explained indictment prosecuting where the just officer court that had he importance. learned their 8. -: -: Evidence: Written Statement of Ad- Defendant: defendant, missions. Where rape, after had he for arrested promises anybody, without threats or admitted his guilt plead guilty, and said wanted to he writ- and afterwards in a prepared request ten as to what occurred at his signed by rape, him denied that he. committed the such properly admissions and such statement were written admitted in evidence. Supreme Court, having 9. -: No -: Error. The read the record in this finds considered case there legally complain, error of can which defendant but on con- trary carefully case tried and well the court and nothing is counsel each side there in in- record impartial than dicate that defendant had other fair and trial jury; unprejudiced judgment accordingly before and the is affirmed.
Appeal Ralph from Jackson Criminal Court.—Hon. Judge.
Latshaw, Ajbttrmed. Attorney-General,
J Barrett, esse W. Robert J. Smith Attorneys-General, Otto, Robert W. Assistant for respondent.
(1) failing The in to instruct on court did not err case, (a) question all the law the is he- This APRIL 43 TERM, v.
State
the record
review,
reason that
court for
fore this
requested
defendant
such
show that
fails to
excepted
show
instructions,
fails
failing to
instruct
the action
the court
Snyder,
668;
Mo.
263
case. State v.
the law
Goldsby,
v.
215 Mo.
29; State
State
267 Mo.
Pfeifer,
v.
Epenschied,
George,
v.
262;
v.
214 Mo.
State
State
57;
(a)
(2)
Mo. 65.
203
Barnett,
Mo.
State v.
222;
admitting
error
the con-
The court did not commit
Barring-
State
fession or
of defendant.
v.
statements
83;Mo.
State
Brooks,
109-110;
State
ton, 198
Armstrong,
Spaug’h,
167 Mo.
(b)
Armstrong,
The
Mrs. Dahmm testified substance, she was *4 standing the front of her at door when house, and wanted some that matches; she
nroached went get.him on some matches and her while return, she was looking in some other he direction, struck her a violent on blow the side of the head, which rendered her un- that lying conscious when came ; she she to, was on top bed another with the room, defendant on of her, having sexual connection with her, and that then he struck with her a which he club, had in his hand, and finally rendered her coming that after unconscious; to, TERM, APRIL v. Lee. of the home go managed distance a short she and doctor, a afterwards called who Tutter, Mrs. Independence notified as at of Police had the Chief the assault. Independence, physician at Mis- a Woods, P. Dr. M. ’ years standing, that was twenty testified, he of
souri, of Dahmm or about the 28th on Elizabeth to treat called p. yard 5:30 that m.; at about in Mrs. Tutter’s June, suffering a and she shock, was her he found her; arouse condition; that he could contused a her face and of about a number wounds found that he eye, large a cut the left contusion over across a neck; right eye a wound that there was skull; and right upper part her on the head, on the back and three-quarter inches one-half to two and two and side, right length; on the side her had, face, that she object imprint you if could see the bruises, have been struck; with which she must was be strike that her knock; But seemed to tear, eyes face one swollen, shut; were and was her bleeding was from these va- discolored, and she nose; wounds and from her that she had some rious her her throat, on around around the marks neck, there marks neck; of her of violence side finger prints through her neck, some scratches her condition skin; that was caused violence. police A. a member of the TanneMU, force, Police went out to the scene of Harris, Chief trouble Tannehill at the home of found, Dahmm, puddle in the bed-room, and some bed, blood he other blood found dried; floor, thirty lying a stick feet house weeds. preserved, introduced at trial. This stick was The evidence on behalf of the State disclosed that was shown to defendant his arrest, stick he that it others, admitted to the Chief of Police and was the stick with which Dahmm. assaulted Elizabeth After the defendant station at the assault, *5 COURT SUPREME OP MISSOURI,
State v. Lee. Glasgow* preparing leave o’clock m., about four for p. at that knew time, railroad men Missouri. None and no the town ex assault, one knew df it, cept Just Police before Chief defendant took Harris. Glasgow, he the train for had talk Harris, Chief ££ that The man and volunteered who com ought that crime mitted be tarred feathered out give you in the think middle of I I can street, and then some evidence.” He said to Chief Harris caught going two' the train fellows east and if he Glasgow might would he catch them. wire At this time, Independence, Mrs. Dahmm was in the sanitarium at having taken there Chief Harris. Glasgow, the train
The defendant took for and after description minute a more assailant had been ob telegram calling Dahmm, tained was sent, nearly He ran for the arrest of defendant. fleeing six miles, before from the he was officer, arrested. After being brought County, approach back to Jackson when Independence, ing he asked Chief Harris take him City, stop on to Kansas as he did not want to at Inde complied pendence. request, The Chief with his jail placed City, following him in the at Kansas until morning. came When Chief take Independence, protested against going, him to he plead guilty. he wanted to said Without threats promises anybody, he then told the Chief Prosecuting Attorney, Police and the Assistant that charged against guilty the crime him, and wanted guilty. plead request, At his a written statement prepared signed as to what occurred, was him, regard changed the assault, but he front to. and denied (cid:127) rape. therein that he had committed Said statement offered in evidence figures is in words and following, to-wit:
£<July 2,1920. ££ July Statement of Walker Lee, made 2, 1920, to Chief Harris and Atty.-at Will Guinotte, Ass’t Pros. APRIL TERM, *6 City. Attorney Prosecuting at Kansas of the the office years and a old am 36 “My Lee. I name Walker is my single.man. Missouri, Roanoke, at I lived have living Mary there now. I my Jane is Lee, mother, life— Independence, and 19, 1920, on Missouri, June came to Railway Chicago employed sec- Alton & was Alton near Ave., hand. I worked on track tion house. At Dahmm’s about two from Mrs. blocks was night boarding slept with the hands. car other I morning quit job on the railroad “I Casey, Lloyd Snoddy Pat two and June, 28th Glasgow quit boys at the same who lived at colored going Glasgow night get that our We were time. ‘craps’ morning pay. ate dinner and I shot about boarding I at car. loafed 12 o’clock around on o’clock I east the tracks about 2:00 walked dinner passed a house that sits about blocks where I two about up I on the track a tracks. walked 50 feet ways to this and back and down little then came went get a drink. woman came to the door A house ‘to on her for some and she said come asked matches I piece gave she them to me. There was a in’ and picked up I the door and it and held at stov.ewood my The woman asked me I where lived and what side. doing working I I was told had been her I Glasgow.. going the railroad and home to Her head was away from me and I hit her turned over head many do not remember how the-club. I times I ran out I then house and went back to hit her. passed boarding Glasgow car. I was down caught I and then to Mexico where train, 5:27 Moberly my Min- I went to where see sister, Wabash Hospital. works at the came who Woodland I Lee, nie night Tuesday morning, Tuesday to Slater back morning Wednesday ar- at tried to the officers Slater got away I and went to Galitan where I was rest me. Glasgow by two and taken back arrested officers Glasgow, jail confined at Mo. was I returned COURT OF MISSOURI, SUPREME Lee. t. Thursday. Independence by Harris state- Chief This my will own free ment is made of accord threats having promises one, been made but because the truth. is “ (signed) Walker “Witnesses.
“Will S. Guinotte.”
The that after evidence defendant was shows arrest- brought County, ed and to Jackson Dahmm identified raped the man him as who assaulted and her. only testimony appellant, The behalf of given by in which himself, testified *7 years age; thirty-seven he was that on the 28th of job quitting came 1920, after his he to June, back the pond to the bunk car went and railroad to take a swim; pond boys go other found not did .the but watched for about one in, hour; that he others then to back, came talked the foreman, and, employees, pass go other railroad received to to Sla- police brought officer ter; him who to Kansas City, get saying him by tried to make a statement, waiting there was a mob for him; that Chief Harris day told him of the crime it was committed; that he did not admit to the officers, that he had ever seen go the club that he before; did not to the 'house of Eliz- Dahmm abeth on the 28tth of June, 1920; that he did not her for matches; ask that he not did have conversa- tion with her on said date; there was no-blood on his hat overalls and that he did not commit this crime. testimony
Other in the case tends to corrobate statement to the effect that defendant was the man who made the assault on Mrs. as Dahmm, heretofore stated. gave The court five covering instructions case, objected which were not jury defendant, and the thereafter into following returned court the verdict: jury, “We, find the defendant, Lee, Walker guilty rape charged as in the indictment and assess punishment his at death.” TERM, APRIL y.
(cid:127) for a new trial in due motions Defendant, time, filed judgment. over- were Both arrest of motions judgment en- lie thereafter sentenced ruled, appeal and an statute; in accordance with the tered, granted duly him to court. this by. represented counsel, here I. Defendant is although most atro- one of the he has been convicted rape. We, there- known our cious crimes law, upon devolving responsibility of mak- us, feel fore, ing thorough facts, of the law examination impar- fair and has had ascertain whether convict- he has and to tial determine'whether upon evidence. ed substantial indict made has been no assault
While to be in find it same and have we examined ment, proper [Sec. form. R. 3247, indictment. State v. Bur Warren, 565-6-7.] ries, gave jury, five instructions The court
II. objected appellant, to either were which fairly They clearly, properly and or substance. form jurors governed be the law declared complaint arriving at their verdict. As Instructions objection urged, against the in- was made, given. *8 given, not it ne- we have deemed structions cessary to them out. set appear
III. It de record, does the giv aside from instructions, offered fendant those any request appear that made of was en, does it nor upon any other case, instruct branch court, the of the the properly by questions of the covered instruc- outside complaint, given. The in de- tions therefore, fendant’s motion fora new that the instruct*0 phases jury to instruct the failed especially the offense, is without as merit; so, exception alleged was saved as to the non-direction of respect the court, [State Cook, matter. said v. 288 Mo. —i
50 SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI, v.
State Wansong, l. c. v. Mo. 833; 59, 207 S. W. State 271 l. c. Pfeifer, 195 1. c. State v. 267 Mo. 1002; S. W. 183 23, Smith, 288; S. State 190 337; W. W. State v. Gif S. Taylor, 186 c. ford, 1060; W. l. Snyder, S. W. State v. 263 Mo. l. c. 668; State Sykes, c. Chissell, State v. 245 Mo. l. Dockery,
554-5;
Y. counsel ground, of several witnesses State, on that the names said witnesses were not endorsed copy indictment furnished defendant. The indictment the case, as shown record file the names of said here, witnesses endorsed thereon. alleged copy The of the indictment, Names pro had, defendant was of Witnesses ' duced in evidence. No motion indictment, Not on quash the indictment was filed de- fendant, nor was continuance of the case asked. Even original if the indictment, did not have the names thereon, witnesses endorsed inwas no con- complain testimony dition of said witnesses, *9 51 APRIL TERM, v. Lee.
State for a quash or asked indictment, lie moved to unless testimony [State offered. thus meet the continuance Ferguson, 212 v. 963; c. State l. v. 220 S. W. Kehoe, Stegner. 207 W. Mo. S. v. 276 S. l. c. State 343; W. Ivy, 192 S. 187; v. 205 S. Webb, W. State 826; State v. Rob v. 990;W. State Jackson, v. 186 733;W. State 255 233; Mo. Walton, v. l. c. 324; 263 Mo. State inson, 21.0 Jeffries, l. c. State v. 553-4; Mo. State v. 239 Rasco, Barrington, 198 Mo. v. 23; State v. Mo. State Myers, 225.] 198 Mo. complaint,
(a) few of the wit- Defendant’s original indict- whose names nesses, competent testify, of that reason were not ment, prosecutor explained to the tenable, fact, is as importance, just of their etc. learned he had court, foregoing committed authorities, Under the testify. permitting in witnesses no error said Appellant, in his motion for. a new con YI. prejudice, his court committed error, tends jury, permitting the State to read to the ivritten statement of heretofore set out. The evi defendant, convincing, promises that no dence is clear or threats sign to defendant as inducement for were made him to contrary, On the said statement. we are beyond from the before us, satisfied record statement of doubt, reasonable volun Defendant. tarily, free of his own accord, will and aforesaid, well statement as as the oral ad made relating guilt, court, etc. The missions his therefore, permtting error in committed no said to be likewise committed evidence; error, read Judge permitting testify, Harris and Pendleton to Chief presence made their to the admissions defendant, as guilt charged connection with the crime to his against 250 Mo. l. c. [State Thomas, him. State Armstrong, Mo. l. c. State v. 83-4; 220 Brooks, Spaugh, Mo. l. c. 596-7; 558-9; l. State c. 109-10; Barrington, l. c. v, Jones, 171 *10 COURT OF MISSOURI, SUPREME Hauptmann Tobacco Co. Unverferth. Meyers,
Mo. l. c. 406; State
99 Mo. l. c. 119;
Patterson,
VII. pains-taking herein with care, we have not been able to any complain. legally find of error can carefully by The case and well court, tried nothing each in counsel side. There is the record to
indicate that defendant other than impartial unpreju £mr mid before an Tried. Wen jury. diced It State, is credit of the that a case this character has tried within its punishment person limits, to a administered found guilty rape, orderly the detestable crime of under legal procedure, administration of rather than a re sort to law. mob judgment
The of the trial court is affirmed, and the cause remanded to the criminal court aforesaid, to proceeded be judgment. with in accordance its Mosley, White and CC., concur. foregoing opinion
PER CURIAM: The of Railey, hereby adopted opinion C., is as the of the court. All judges concur. PETER HAUPTMANN TOBACCO COMPANY Appellant.
HENRY UNVERFERTH, May Two, Division 1921. Appearance. Justice' Court: Attachment: Entrance Where defendant, justice peace court, in attachment sued judgment appeal court took the circuit from a rendered against justice,' thereby appearance him entered his purposes in that and was court case though court, circuit even in the latter his case court he discharge attempted appear specially gar- a motion case, and nishment overruled at- and dismiss