The State v. McGinnis, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri1882-10

76 Mo. 326

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. The trial court's instructional errors regarding deliberation and witness credibility were harmless or properly supported, and the venue evidence was sufficient to establish that the crime occurred in Howell County.

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife in May 1882 and appealed, challenging several jury instructions given at trial. The court examined the defendant's primary contentions regarding the instructions on deliberation, witness credibility, and the defendant's right to testify. The appellate court found that while one instruction's definition of deliberation deviated from prior case law, this error was immaterial because the trial record contained no evidence of provocation or passion that would have affected the jury's analysis under the correct standard. The other challenged instructions were either supported by prior precedent or properly balanced by complementary instructions that fairly presented the law to the jury.

The defendant also challenged the sufficiency of venue evidence, arguing insufficient proof that the homicide occurred in Howell County as alleged in the indictment. The court determined that circumstantial evidence—including testimony from a witness present in the room where the killing took place—was adequate to establish venue, drawing support from prior decisions holding that direct proof is unnecessary so long as the circumstances reasonably support the conclusion that the crime occurred in the alleged county.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an erroneous instruction defining deliberation in terms of blood temperature constituted reversible error absent evidence of provocation or passion
Whether instructions on witness credibility, including consideration of chastity and defendant's interest, were proper
Whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently established venue in the indicted county

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction from the circuit court of Howell County.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Norton, J.

Defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Howell county, for murder in the first degree for killing his wife Sarah McGinnis on the 21st day of May, 1882. He was tried and convicted, and brings the case to this court by appeal, and seeks a reversal of the judgment on the alleged grounds, among others to be hereafter noticed, that the court erred in giving the second, fourth and fifth instructions for the.State.

It is insisted that the court erred in the second instruction defining deliberately to mean, “ done in a cool state of the blood—that is, not in a heated stat® of the blood caused by lawful provocation.” The definition thus given is not in harmony with the ruling of this court in the cases of State v. Lewis, 74 Mo. 222; State v. Talbott, 73 Mo. 347, and State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 207. In the last of these cases, where the same error here complained of was committed, it was held not to be reversible error, because there was no evidence tending to show any provocation or the existence of passion on the part of defendant which excluded deliberation and mitigated the homicide. So in the present case, after an examination of the record, and finding no evidence tending to show provocation, either by the words or acts of deceased, or the existence of such passion on the part of defendant as would mitigate the homicide, the error complained of must be in this case, as it was in that, held to be an immaterial one.

It is also insisted that the court erred in giving instructions four and five, which are as follows :

4. That although the defendant may have proven that Mary Fitzpatrick’s reputation for chastity is bad, yet the jury should not exclude her testimony on that account if her testimony is corroborated by other witnesses or other facts and circumstances.

5. That the defendant has a right to be a witness in his own behalf, yet in weighing his evidence and the weight to be given thereto, they have a right to take into consideration the interest that he has at stake in this case.

The fourth instruction, when taken in connection with the sixth given for the State, in which the jury are told that they are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses and weight of testimony, and if they believe that any witness has willfully sworn falsely to any material fact in the case, they should disregard said testimony and were at liberty to disregard all the evidence of such witness; and when it is considered also in connection with the eighth instruction given for defendant, in which the jury are told that the fact that the reputation of any witness for chastity and virtue was bad, might be taken into consideration by them in weighing the testimony and arriving at the credibility of such witness, the law of the case was fairly given to the jury.

The fifth instruction was fully warranted by the eases of State v. Maguire, 69 Mo. 197, and State v. Zorn, 71 Mo. 415.

It is also objected that there was no evidence that the . homicide was committed in Howell county. While it is necessai7 in criminal cases to prove the venue as laid jn £pe indictment, it is not necessary that the evidence should be direct, express and positive; hut it is sufficient if the circumstances in evidence tend satisfactorily to the conclusion that the crime was committed in the county.alleged in the indictment. State v. West, 69 Mo. 404; State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438. The law required the circuit court to be held at the county seat of Howell county, and the record in the case before us shows that it was held at the town of West Piains, and defendant put upon his trial. It also shows that the court and jury visited the scene of the homicide and took the testimony of Mrs. Hensley, who testified among other things as follows: “I lived in this room at the time of the homicide; at five o’clock, or about sun-down, the homicide occurred in this room.” This, we think, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the homicide was committed at the place alleged. It is certainly sufficient under the authority of State v. Burns, supra, where the indictment alleged that the homicide was committed in St. Louis county. The court was held in the city of St. Louis and the only evidence as to venue was that the homicide was committed in Mullanphy street, and no express statement any where made that said street was either in the county or city of St. Louis. This was held to be sufficient. Judgment affirmed,

in which all concur.