State v. NolanState v. Nolan
Officers Mead, Blessing and McCullough of the St. Joseph, Missouri, Police Department went on duty at midnight March 18, 1944, and were cruising in a squad car. The B. & M. Tavern in said city was burglarized between 1:30 and 2:00 A. M. of said night. This was broadcast over the police radio to all squad cars about 2:00 A. M., and advised of the burglary and of the larceny of about $12.00 in change, pennies, etc., and a gun, or probably two. About 2:00 A. M., Officers Mead, Blessing and McCullough had interferred with what appeared to be the starting of a fight and ordered the men off the street. They cruised around a few minutes, returned, and observing a man still on the street corner, Officers Mead and Blessing left the automobile to find out why he had not gone. “Nick,” the night man in a restaurant there, then told Mead and Blessing “about a dirty little boy coming and getting a ten dollar bill for a lot of small change.” “Nick” gave the officers a description of the boy and the direction in which he went. They returned to the squad car and following the directions given by “Nick,” located the boy on the southwest corner of 5th and Edmond streets. Mead, who was driving, pulled over on the southwest corner, heading in the wrong direction, and McCullough and Blessing, wearing their uniforms, got out. McCullough was in the lead. The boy, Nolan, in his seventeenth year, is appellant here. He had committed the felony at the B. & M. Tavern but this was not then actually known to the officers. He stated he lived in Florence Addition in response to a question. McCullough started to ask another question, at the same time reaching for appellant. McCullough said he took hold of appellant and
The contention that a submissible case was not made is without merit. That appellant used a deadly weapon; that he intended to shoot Officer Mead; and that he shot Officer Mead at a vital part of the body is not questioned. These circumstances of the instant cаse were sufficient to give rise to a presumption of murder in the second degree in the absence of other facts establishing murder in the first degree by proof of deliberation or establishing manslaughter by proof of want of malice or establishing an excusable or justifiable homicide. State v. Holme, 54 Mo. 153, 161; State v. Kyles, 247 Mo. 640, 647(I), 153 S. W. 1047, 1050(1); State v. Harris (Mo.), 177 S. W. 362, 364[2]; State v. Miller, 346 Mo. 846, 848[1], 143 S. W. 2d 241, 242[1, 2]; State v. Moore (Mo.), 235 S. W. 1056, 1058[2].
Several issues presented by appellant stand or fall on the factual issue whether in the circumstances the jury could legally find that Officer Mead was attempting a lawful arrest. They arise in connection with several instructions. One denied appellant the benefit of his plea of self-defense if the jury found appellant killed in knowingly resisting a lawful arrest attempted in a lawful manner. Another advised the jury that Officer Mead had the right to arrest appellant if he had reasonable cause to believe and did believe that appellant had committed the felony of burglary and larceny of the B. & M. Tavern. Another was to the effect that if appellant knew Mead was a police officer and intended to place appellant under arrest for the felony of breaking into the B. & M. Tavern and that Mead was using only such force as was reasonably necessary to make said arrest and had reasonable cause to believe appellant guilty, then re-
The evidence is to be reviewed in the light most favorable to the State in determining its sufficiency for the submission of the fact issue of the lawfulness of the attempted arrest of appellant without a warrant, the officers having no warrant. In this connection neither the State nor Officer Mead was bound by any thoughts or reasons which might have dominated the acts of Officers Blessing or McCullough. State v. Whitley (Mo.), 183 S. W. 317, 319[3]. Distinctions exist with respect to the authority to make arrests, among other factors, between officers and private individuals (the аuthority of officers naturally embracing and exceeding that of private citizens); with respect to the grade of the offense, if any, committed, whether a felony or a misdemeanor; and whether committed within the view of the person making the arrest.
Officer Mead was a member of the police force of the City of St. Joseph. “A policeman, then, has the same power of making arrests for crimes or offenses against the State as has a sheriff, constable, etс., and in thus making arrests is covered by the same peculiar protection which the law throws around a sheriff or other like officer.” State v. Evans, 161 Mo. 95, 108(2, 5); 61 S. W. 590, 593(2, 5), 84 Am. St. Rep. 669, after discussing the issue. See also State v. Gartland, 304 Mo. 87, 100, 263 S. W. 165, 169;
“Arrests by officers without warrant may be executed: 1. By a justice of the Peace . . . 2. The sheriff . . . 3. The coroner . . . 4. The constable . . . And in case of felony actually committed . . . he may upon probable suspicion arrest the felon; and for that purpose is authorized (as upon a justice‘s warrant) to break open doоrs and even to kill the felon if he cannot otherwise be taken; and, if he or his assistants be killed in attempting such arrests, it is murder in all concerned.” 4 Blackstone Commentaries *292. In the note to Cooley‘s 1899 edition (Vol. 2, p. 1445) it is stated: “If a felony has in fact been committed by the person arrested, the arrest may be justified by any person without a warrant, whether there is time to obtain one or not. . . . But if no felony was committed by any one, and a private individual arrest without a warrant, such arrest is illegal, although an officer would be justified if he acted upon reliable information. [Citing cases.] . . . Arrest without warrant may be made by an officer where no felony has actually been committed, but suspected, and the individual is suspected of being the criminal; but a private person can justify the arrest only by showing the actual commission of a felony, and reasonable grounds to suspect the accused.”1
State v. Whitley (Mo.), 183 S. W. 317, was an appeal from a conviction for murder in the first degree. One night Officеrs Shaiper and Joyce of St. Louis saw Whitley and one Wagner holding to David O‘Connor. They suspected O‘Connor was drunk and was being robbed and ran to the scene. Being told in response to inquiries that neither Whitley nor Wagner knew each other or O‘Connor, the Officers placed the three under arrest and started toward a patrol box a few blocks away, Shaiper and Whitley in the lead. After traversing about 500 feet, Joyce observed a sudden scuffle between Shaiper and Whitley and hеard a pistol shot, followed immediately by two more. Shaiper fell mortally wounded and Whitley fled. He was apprehended later. Earlier in the night Whitley had robbed one Ladinsky; but so far as appears of record neither officer had any knowledge or information of that felony. Whitley attacked the lawfulness of his arrest and claimed he had the right to resist. The court overruled these contentions on two grounds: (1) That Whitley had submitted to and did not resist an arrest; and (2) anyway the facts afforded sufficient grounds for Whitley‘s arrest if he had not submitted. Whitley also attacked an instruction to the effect, so far as material, that if he, in fact robbed Ladinsky and was, at the time of arrest, acting so as to create a reasonable suspicion that he had committed or was engaged in committing a felony, then it was the duty of Officer Shaiper “to arrest defendant, and the duty of defendant to submit thereto.” Whitley contended that, regardless of whether he had in fact just robbed Ladinsky, the officer was not entitled to the protection stated in the instruction if he did not have knowledge of that felony. The court stated the instruction should be (if not theretofore declared to be) the law and proceeded to so establish the law, considering Whitley‘s contention “so technical and narrow as to verge upon the ridiculous.” The court, on the issue presented by the instruction pointed out with respect to an arrest without a warrant by a police officer “. . . and (b) that he may arrest upon suspicion any person who is in fact guilty of a recent felony, whether the officer be advised of such felony or not.” (l. c. 320.) The court continued: “. . . the fact of guilt of the recent felony should be held to deprive the defendant of his right to resist“; and: “. . . we hold lawful the arrest of one guilty of an antecedent felony which is unknown to the arresting officer. . . . But [Whitley] being guilty, and knowing his guilt thereof (as the inference is from the jury‘s verdict), the duty was by law incumbent on
State v. Williams, 328 Mo. 627, 630, 631, 14 S. W. 2d 434, 435[3-6], involved the lawfulness of an arrest without a warrant. After pointing out that defendants admitted they had transported and were convicted of transporting “moonshine,” “corn whiskey” a felony under
“But an officer has a right to arrest without a warrant on reasonable ground to suspect that the person arrested has committed a felony. . . .
“. . . He is not necessarily justified because he believes an offense has been committed, but he is always justified if an offense in fact has been committed, whether he had reason to believe it or not. If a crime has not been committed, then he can only be justified by the existence of reasonable ground to believe that it has been committed. As applicable to this case it would not matter a particle, when the deputy sheriff made the arrest, whether reasonable ground to believe a felony had been committed was presented to his mind or not; he is justified because the reasonable ground existed; the crime had in fact been committed. That is a complete justification. The arrest was therefore lawful.”
State v. Raines, 339 Mo. 884, 890, 98 S. W. 2d 580, 584[4], a prosecution for burglary, involved an arrest without a warrant аnd a search incident thereto, without a search warrant. The court quoted and applied State v. Williams, supra. Consult also State v. McNally, 87 Mo. 644, 651 (II, III); State v. Ford, 334 Mo. 1219, 1225, 130 S. W. 2d 635, 639; State v. Julian, 25 Mo. App. 133, 138(I).
Our statutes explicitly authorize officers to use all necessary force to effect an arrest if a person flee or resist after notice of an intention to arrest him (
Among reasons advanced for protecting officers in the discharge of their lawful duties are: In a republic like ours, the citizens are sovereign. At common law and by statute sheriffs, constables, and other like officers are required to discharge their official duties—protect the sovereign—under penalties. The execution of legal processes and the discharge of legal obligations give life to the law; and resistance thereto is in opposition to the law, unlawful, and needs no inquiry as to malice.
The mental state of the accused at the time of the arrest is a material subject of inquiry. A citizen who has committed no felony is conscious of no guilt and an arrest on a false pretense can readily arouse indignation and anger and righteous passion. How can that honest sense of outrage which springs into the mind of the innocent arise in the breast of a felon? Neither reason nor law reaches such a result. A felon knows of his violations of law, his crimes. An enemy of the sovereign and the security of society, he knows he has forfeited his right to liberty and that the discharge of duties imposed upon the protectors of the security of the sovereign demands his apprehension to answer at the bar of justice. Fear of and a desire to escape punishment motivates his resistance to a lawful arrest. Resistance thus becomes a crime—and passion becomes wickedness. Consequently, the law that imposes the duty upon officers to arrest felons exacts, as a necessary corollary, that felons submit to lawful arrest.
“And hence it is; that these officers, that are thus intrusted; may without any other warrant but from themselves arrest felons
In the instant case we have not only the fact of the felony but also the fact of the arrested person being the felon. The attempted arrest was justified on two grounds.
Officer Mead had reasonable ground to suspect appellant guilty of the felony. Driving the squad car, he received the official police broadcast of the burglary and larсeny of the B. & M. Tavern; knew that considerable small change, and a pistol, possibly two, had been taken. He and Officer Blessing were informed by “Nick” that a boy had just secured a $10 bill for a lot of small change. The officers located appellant nearby. Mead knew of Officers McCullough and Blessing approaching appellant. He must have seen the boy break the hold of Officer McCullough. He knew appellant was fleeing and Officer Blessing was pursuing. The crime was fresh; the рursuit was fresh. “Nick” the restaurant man, without knowledge of the burglary and larceny, so far as shown by this record, had his suspicions aroused to such an extent by appellant getting a $10 bill for a lot of small change at two in the morning of “an awful bad night,” raining, snowing and blowing, that he notified the officers. The jury could well find that Officer Mead, in joining Officer Blessing in the pursuit of appellant, reasonably suspected appellant of the commission of the burglary and larceny and was discharging the statutory duty enjoined upon him to effect the lawful arrest of a fleeing felon without waiting for a warrant. Furthermore, the presumption is that peace officers are in the lawful discharge of their duty in attempting to make arrests. State v. Cushenberry, 157 Mo. 168, 180(2), 56 S. W. 737, 742(2); Barboursville ex rel. Bates v. Taylor, 115 W. Va. 4, 174 S. E. 485, 92 A. L. R. 1093, 1097[4]. The presumption is difficult to rebut when the person arrested admits the commission of the felony.
Appellant was guilty of the burglary and larceny of the B. & M. Tavern. He knew “the cops,” peace officers, were calling to
Appellant‘s authorities disclose no error. State v. McGehee, 308 Mo. 560, 567(I), 274 S. W. 70, 71[1, 3], and State v. McBride, 327 Mo. 184, 188, 37 S. W. 2d 423, 424[3-6], are sufficiently distinguishable from the instant case in that they involved at most only a misdemeanor (see the McBride opinion). It is sufficient for the purposes here, without any necessity for inquiry into the propriety of all observations in all circumstances found in those cases, to simply point out that the authors of said opinions (White, J., and Cooley, C.) were, respectively, the authors of the later оpinion in State v. Williams, supra, and State v. Raines, supra, cases involving felonies and in harmony with the rulings herein. State v. McGehee was overruled in part in State v. Ford, 344 Mo. 1219, 1227, 130 S. W. 2d 635, 640.
McKeon v. National Casualty Co., 216 Mo. App. 507, 523(VI), 270 S. W. 707, 711[5], involved defendant‘s liability under an accident insurance policy for the death of one McKeon who was killed when St. Louis policemen, who had no charge against him, sought to arrest him without a warrant for the sole purpose of identification, if possible, as a robber. What was there said, was said in ruling whether McKeon‘s death was accidental within the policy: “That is to say, if thе act causing the injury was intentionally done by the insured, the result was not accidental; on the other hand, if the injury was intentionally caused by the aggressive act of another, the result was accidental.” The determination that the police were the aggressors for the purpose of applying the policy provisions to the facts of that case is not controlling here. The issue and the facts differ.
In State v. Burnett, 354 Mo. 45, 188 S. W. 2d 51, 53[1], there was no evidence that defendant had committed any crime оr was suspected of any felony.
State v. Jordan, 306 Mo. 3, 23(III), 268 S. W. 64, 70(4), held an instruction on the right of a police officer to arrest without a warrant upon reasonable grounds for the suspicion of a crime had no support in the evidence, was a mere abstraction and should not have been given; not necessarily reversible error. It is readily observable that the instant facts differ and the State‘s presentation here raises issues not considered in the Jordan case.
Appellant‘s contentions are overruled.
Instruction No. 9 was abstract in nаture, did not direct a verdict but informed the jury it was the duty of an officer to arrest persons whom he had reasonable cause to believe guilty of a felony “and to use such force as he may reasonably believe to be necessary to accomplish the arrest,” and then, in a separate paragraph, that it
What we have said covers all issues preserved for our review; issues presented in appellant‘s brief and in his motion for new trial. We have examined the other issues mentioned either in the brief or in the motion. They are without merit. Fоr instance: Appellant, convicted of manslaughter, may not successfully urge error, if any, in the instruction submitting the greater offense of second degree murder to the jury. State v. Flinn (Mo.), 96 S. W. 2d 506, 511[12]. Under appellant‘s testimony, he had no legal self-defense
The judgment is affirmed. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.
PER CURIAM:—The foregoing opinion by BOHLING, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court. Leedy, J., and Ellison, P. J., concur; Tipton, J., not sitting.