110 Mo. App. 75 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1904
— Tbe defendant, being a member of tbe Missouri State Senate, was indicted, tried and convicted on tbe charge of soliciting a bribe Tor bis vote as- a Senator on a bill then pending in tbe Senate. A change of venue from Judge Hazell, judge of tbe circuit, court of Cole county, was taken and tbe case was tried in that county by Judge H. C. Timmonds of tbe Twenty-sixth circuit. Defendant appealed to this court.
On its face, we regard tbe indictment as well drawn. It sets forth in plain language tbe official position of defendant, tbe pendency in tbe Senate of tbe legislative bill and of defendant’s duty to act thereon. It charges from whom be solicited tbe bribe and tbe amount thereof, and tbe official action be would take on tbe bill if tbe sum mentioned was paid him. Tbe venue and all other technical requirements were properly charged and we discover nothing to justify a criticism.
There was, however, objection made to tbe indictment by way of a plea in abatement wherein it was. stated that tbe cause should be abated on tbe ground, first, that tbe Attorney-General of the State appeared before tbe grand jury while it was considering whether a bill of indictment should be found; second, that a stenographer, not a member of tbe jury, was permitted;
An answer to this plea was filed by the State in which it was admitted that the Attorney-General and also a stenographer were present at different times with the grand jury while the present bill was under •consideration; that the Attorney-General assisted in the examination of witnesses and the stenographer made notes of the evidence heard, but that neither of them took part in the deliberation of the jury, nor were they present when the jury voted to find the bill.
The defendant demurred to the answer on the ground that it showed no defense to the plea in abatement. The trial court overruled the demurrer and the plea; whereupon the cause proceeded to trial which, as before stated, resulted in a verdict of guilty.
*81 “Jefferson City, Mo., March 31, 1903.
“Hon. A. M. Dockery, Governor: Dear Sir: — We, the judge, prosecuting attorney and grand jury of Cole county, respectfully ask that you request Hon. E. C. Crow, Attorney-General, to assist the jury in its i-nvestigati ons in boodling, etc. ”
That in pursuance of such request, the Governor gave the following written order or direction to the Attorney-General:
. “St. Louis, April 1, 1903.
“Hon. E. C. Crow, Attorney-General, Jefferson City, Mo.: The circuit judge, prosecuting attorney and grand jury of Cole county having requested your service, under the authority of section 4940 of the Revised Statutes, I hereby direct you to aid the prosecuting attorney of Cole county in the discharge of his duties. A. M. Dockery, Governor.”
In the case of State v. Hays, 23 Mo. 287, James B. Gardenshire, Esq., then Attorney-General, appeared at the trial assisting the circuit attorney in the prosecution. He did so at the circuit attorney’s request and with the consent of the trial court, though without an -order from the Governor; and it was held that he had the right, on such request and consent,, notwithstanding there was no direction from the Governor.
That, however, was taking part in the case in open court, under the eye and protection of the court and where the proceedings, are open to- the public, and where secrecy concerning any movement in the ease is not tolerated. While the proceedings in which the Attorney-General took part in this case were before the grand jury where the conditions are different and where the law, for good reasons, enjoins secrecy, and where only certain designated persons, outside the members of the jury, ought to go. But the organization of the grand jury, its proceedings and the duty of dif
The answer to the plea in abatement not only ad- ■ mits that a stenographer was present .with the jury during its deliberations and took down the testimony of witnesses, but it alleges that he was the court stenographer and a sworn officer and that in addition he was sworn by the foreman not to divulge any matters transpiring before the jury. It was furthermore alleged that he was not present when the jury were deliberating or voting on the indictment, and that the presence and action of such stenographer did not in any manner operate to the prejudice of the defendant.
But the impropriety and irregularity of introducing an unauthorized person into the presence of the grand jury does not ipso facto avoid the action of the jury. In order that such irregularity may avail the defendant, it must appear that he has been harmed or prejudiced thereby. [State v. Bates, 148 Ind. 610; State v. Brewster, 70 Vt. 341; U. S. v. Simmons, 46 Fed. Rep. 65; Courtney v. State, 5 Ind. App. 356.] The demurrer to the answer filed by the State admits the allegation of the answer that no prejudice resulted to defendant by the stenographer’s presence, and it therefore follows that we must rule the point against the defendant.
The answer made by the State to that part of defendant’s plea in abatement relating to the absence of one of the grand jurors admitted such absence, but alleged that the juror was not absent during the investigation and decision of defendant’s case, nor during the deliberation thereon. That being true, it can make no difference to defendant that a juror was absent at a time when defendant and the charge against him were not under consideration. This makes it unnecessary for us to enter into a discussion of the question whether' it is required that the full panel of twelve jurors be present though nine may find a true bill of indictment.
By a motion in arrest of judgment defendant brought up the question whether soliciting a bribe was an offense under the laws of Missouri. It is stated by defendant that bribery of anyone other than a. judicial officer was not an offense at common law. That therefore if bribery of a legislative officer was not an offense the solicitation to be bribed, of course, could not be an
Though we thus find it to be an offense at common law to bribe a legislative officer, the question whether it is an offense against the common law for such an officer to solicit a bribe remains to be answered. The question received full consideration by Judge Timmonds who drew up in writing his conclusions and the reasons therefor, wherein it is demonstrated to our satisfaction, that while there is no statute on the subject, yet to solicit a bribe is a misdemeanor under the common law in force in this State.
While it was a felony at common law to bribe a judicial officer, it does not appear clear whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor to bribe other officers. The distinction becomes important from the fact that it is not altogether certain that soliciting one to commit a misdemeanor is a common law offense. The books leave such question in a state of uncertainty. It has been said to bribe a legislative officer is only a misdemeanor at common law, and that to solicit the commission of a misdemeanor is not an offense; that soliciting the bribe in this case was merely soliciting the commission of a misdemeanor and was therefore not a common-law offense.
While, as we have just said, doubt has been cast on the question, yet we believe that it was a common law offense to incite or solicit another to commit a misdemeanor. The English courts have uniformly held that an attempt to commit a misdemeanor was itself a misdemeanor, and was to be punished as such. Thus, it was said that an attempt to commit an act which was a misdemeanor, whether - by statute or common law, was itself a misdemeanor. " [Rex v. Butler, 6 C. & P. 368; Rex v. Roderick, 7 C. & P. 795.] That any one unlawful step necessary or useful towards com
It has been at times suggested that to merely solicit the unlawful offense was not doing an act, and that the law could not notice a mere desire unaccompanied by an act. But, manifestly, soliciting is an act. It is a step in the direction of an offense. [State v. Hayes, 78 Mo. 316; King v. Higgins, supra; State v. Avery, 7 Conn. 267; 1 Bishop’s Crim. Law, sec. 767.] And so it may also be said that some of the foregoing cases are for attempts to commit an offense and that they therefore do not apply to a case where there has only been a solicitation; it being contended that a solicitation is not an attempt. But it is. For the act of soliciting is an attempt to have the offense committed. Indeed, the case of King v. Higgins, supra, and several others, were cases of solicitation.
Text-writers have laid down the law that to solicit the commission of an offense was indictable, without noticing any distinction whether the offense solicited was a felony or misdemeanor. [Bishop on Crim. Law, supra; Wharton on Crim. Law, supra; 1 Russell on Crim. Law, 19'3, 194.] These writers look only to the character of the offense in its evil tendency and not to its technical designation. And so in a case from the Supreme Court of Illinois, much like the present save that this involves a State Senator and that an aider-man in Chicago, it was held that, though there was no statute on the subject in that State, yet it was an indictable misdemeanor for an officer to propose to receive a bribe. The court said:
“According to the well-established principles of*88 the common law, the proposal to receive the bribe was • an act which tended to the prejudice of the community; greatly outraged public decency; was in the highest degree injurious to the public morals; was a gross breach of official duty, and must therefore be regarded as a misdemeanor, for which the party is liable to indictment. It is an offense more serious and corrupting in its tendencies than an ineffectual attempt to bribe. In the one case, the officer spurns the temptation, and maintains his purity and integrity; in the other, he manifests a depravity and dishonesty existing in himself, which, when developed by the proposal to take a bribe, if done Avith a corrupt intent, should be punished; and it would be a slander upon the law to suppose that such conduct can not be checked, by appropriate punishment.” [Walsh v. The People, 65 Ill. 58.] That case had much weight with the trial judge in his consideration of the question.
We do not regard as in point the case of Hutchinson v. State, 36 Texas 293, wherein it was held that an offer of a road overseer to accept a bribe was not an offense. If the laws of that State with reference to the common law were as they are in other States we would regard the case as out of line with the overwhelming weight of authority. But by the statute of that State (chapter 1, article 3, Penal Code of Texas) only those acts are offenses which are declared to be such by the statute. The common law is thus excluded from operation.
But if we should be mistaken in the view that to solicit one to commit a misdemeanor is itself, a misdemeanor at common law, it would not affect this case. For it is certain that to solicit the commission of an offense which is a felony is a misdemeanor at common law. It can make no difference whether the offense which is solicited is ma'de a felony by act of parliament or by the common law, it is only necessary that it be a felony, no matter how
The cases of State v. Priestley, 74 Mo. 24, and State v. Harney, 101 Mo. 470, are not authorities in favor of defendant, nor are they opposed to the conclusions we have stated. Each of those cases was. founded on indictments for an attempt to commit a rape. The facts in each were that the accused merely solicited consent to the sexual act proposed. Rape and attempt to rape, each mean an assault; and words of solicitation or persuasion do not constitute an assault. Indeed, the familiar statement in criminal law, that, words do not justify an assault, shows that mere persuasion can not be construed to be an assault and without an assault there can be neither rape nor an attempt to rape. It is true that in the Harney ease the person solicited was a child under twelve years, and if the act had been consummated, or attempted, her consent (by force of the statute) would not have been a defense. But yet, an act must be committed which, in the case of an older person, would constitute an assault. In the case of an older person there must be no consent to the act, or the attempt. In the child the law assumes there can be no consent, but, in order to constitute the offense the same acts committed against the older person without her consent
It is thus readily seen that the solicition for bribery and for sexual intercourse are in no way alike . in the essentials which constitute a crime. Another distinction illustrates the lack of analogy. To solicit a bribe is to solicit a crime to be committed by the party solicited; while to solicit sexual intercourse is not to solicit the perpetration of a crime (except in States where the intercourse is made a crime). And even where the solicitation is made of the child it is not a solicitation for her to commit a crime.
It is finally argued that the evidence does not show defendant to be guilty. Under our system, the issue whether he was guilty is not triable in an appellate court. Facts are to be determined by a jury. We will pronounce upon a case in which there is no substantial evidence to sustain a verdict, but where there is evidence, its credibility and weight are exclusively for the jury under the supervision of the trial court. That court having the better opportunity for correct conclusions as to the weight of evidence, is entrusted with far larger discretion over verdicts than has an appellate court. [Reid v. Ins. Co., 58 Mo. 421; Bank v. Armstrong, 92 Mo. 265; State v. Young, 119 Mo. 525; Hunt v. Ancient Order, 105 Mo. App. 41.]
We pass then to the question whether there was any substantial evidence of defendant’s guilt upon which the jury could base a verdict, and find it to be ample. The principal witness was Whitney Layton, who was interested in the manufacture of a baking powder in which alum was an ingredient. The Legislature of Missouri had enacted a law by passing a bill known as the “Pure Food Law” which prohibited the use of alum in food products. Manufacturers of baking powder who used alum in their product (Layton’s company among others) were endeavoring to secure the. repeal of that law at the session of the Legislature in
The defendant testified in his own behalf and called in his chief support two witnesses, one of them being Senator Smith. Defendant denied meeting Layton at the Capitol building on the evening stated. He denied being acquainted with him until at the Madison House, Smith introduced them. He denied that he solicited a bribe, but said that Layton, on the evening in question,
Smith was under indictment for a like offense. He denied that he met defendant and Layton at the. Capitol building and accompanied them to the hotel. He said that he met them at the hotel and, they not being acquainted, he introduced them. That he then stepped away and defendant and Layton entered into a conversation. That afterwards, on the same evening, at the hotel, he met Layton, who knew that he (Smith) was not friendly to the repeal of the alum law Layton wanted repealed, that they entered into conversation in which Layton told him flatly that he had tried to bribe defendant; that he had offered him fifteen hundred dol
The other witness was then introduced. He stated that he first met Layton on the train between Jefferson City and St. Louis and was introduced to him. That Layton then proposed to engage him to bribe defendant. He said that Layton seemed much pleased to hear him say that he thought it unjust to discriminate against anything manufactured in this State. The witness continued in these words: “He says, ‘I would; like for you to help me out in this.’ He says, ‘I have got no big money, but I am willing to spend two or three thousand dollars for enough votes — at this time it takes about three votes.’ I listened to him. He says, ‘ Now, you have a Senator from your county that I have never been able to have any satisfactory conversation with,’ and, he says, ‘he has always,’ that is, Senator Sullivan, ‘he has always stood — ’ ”
Mr. Crow: “Did he say, ‘from your county?’
Witness: “No, sir; he said, ‘from your country,’ and he said that Senator Sullivan said he was always going to do what his people said — stand by his people, but he thought he could be purchased; and he said, ‘you see what you can do with him. ’ After he got through with all this conversation I told him, I says, ‘Mr. Lay-ton, I have never handled any boodle or anything in my life, and I can’t do it now. If I could do anything for you or your bill legitimately, I would be glad to. ’ So I see him several times up here and talked to him casually about it; but after I seen that they was putting up money in it I never paid any more attention; but I talked to him several times up at Jeíf. City, and he said he was having a hard fight. ’ ’
We have not discovered any legal reason for disturbing the judgment of conviction and hence order its affirmance.