In the Interest of Fisher

468 S.W.2d 198, 1971 Mo. LEXIS 978
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 28, 1971
Docket54670
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 468 S.W.2d 198 (In the Interest of Fisher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In the Interest of Fisher, 468 S.W.2d 198, 1971 Mo. LEXIS 978 (Mo. 1971).

Opinion

FINCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from the judgment in a proceeding under Chapter 211, 1 (The Missouri Juvenile Code) wherein the Juvenile Judge of Jackson County, after a five and one-half day hearing, sustained the petition filed by the Juvenile Officer and found that Gary Everett Fisher was in need of the care, treatment and services of the Juvenile Court. The court’s order committed Gary to the Missouri Division of Mental Diseases for placement at State Hospital No. 1 at Fulton for care and treatment until further order of the court. We affirm.

In the petition filed by the Juvenile Officer, Gary was charged (in the language of § 559.010) with killing by means of a knife Mrs. Kay Ransier who resided on the second floor of the house in which Gary lived with his parents. This case was tried pursuant to the procedure specified in § 211.171, the trial being by the court without a jury and with the public excluded from the hearing. Prior to commencement of the trial, counsel for Gary filed a written request for a jury trial, relying on state and federal constitutional provisions, but that request was overruled.

The two issues urged on this appeal are (1) that the evidence does not support the finding and judgment of the Juvenile Court because Gary was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have killed Kay Ran-sier, and (2) that denial of the request for a jury deprived Gary of his constitutionally guaranteed right of trial by jury.

At the outset, we note that even though this case was tried prior to the decision of In the Matter of Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368, the attorneys recognized that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Gary Fisher was required. Applying that test, the judge of the Juvenile Court found that the evidence that Gary killed Mrs. Ransier was overwhelming. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support that finding and judgment, we treat it as equivalent to a jury verdict and we consider the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable *200 thereto. State v. Clark, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 277.

Gary lived with his parents at. 3534 Windsor, in Kansas City. The Fishers, who owned the house, lived on the first floor and rented the second floor to Mrs. Ransier and her two small children (two and three years old). On September 2, 1968 (Labor Day), Mr. and Mrs. Fisher left their house at 4:15 p. m. and picked up Gary, who was at a friend’s house playing football. They went to visit relatives and returned home at about 10:00 p. m. Meanwhile, at about 4:30 p. m., Mrs. Ransier and her two children accompanied a sister to their parents for a cookout. The sister brought them back to the apartment at about 7:30 p. m.

The Fishers had seen Mrs. Ransier when they left at 4:15 but did not see her after they returned at 10:00 p. m. However, Mrs. Fisher did hear footsteps upstairs after she went to bed that evening.

When the Fishers returned home, Gary went to the basement to take a bath and then remained up to watch the late TV movie in a TV room on the first floor adjacent to his bedroom. That movie began about 10:30 p. m. Mr. and Mrs. Fisher went to bed at about that time. At 1:30 a. m. Mrs. Fisher awakened and heard Gary going to the basement. She called to him to ask him what he was doing, and he replied that he had forgotten to drain the water from the tub and had gone downstairs to do so. When she heard water running from the tub, Mrs. Fisher returned to bed.

Mr. Fisher arose at the usual time of 5:15 on the morning of September 3. When he opened the door between their bedroom and the hall to go out and get the morning paper, he heard an alarm clock ringing. At about 5:30 he called his wife and she, too, noticed the alarm. She started breakfast, but the alarm kept ringing, so they both went upstairs to call Mrs. Ran-sier or to ascertain what was wrong. Mrs. Ransier usually arose early because she worked as a waitress. When she went to work, she left her children in the care of Mrs. Fisher.

When Mr. and Mrs. Fisher went upstairs they noticed that the upstairs hall light, usually left on at night, was not burning. They turned on the hall light and then stepped into the room used by Mrs. Ransier as her bedroom. When they saw Mrs. Ransier lying on the bed and observed her condition, they immediately went downstairs and called the police.

When the police arrived they found Mrs. Ransier’s body on the bed with her feet dangling over the side. They found eighteen stab wounds in the body and there was a depression and fragmentation in the head area immediately behind the right ear. There was blood on her body and head, blood on the sheets, blood spattered on the adjacent wall, and a large pool of blood on the linoleum floor beside the bed. It was dry around the edges but still wet in the center.

A footprint in the pool of blood on the floor was observed, apparently pointing in the direction away from the bed. There were other footprints leading away from that point. After observing the size of these footprints, the officers asked to see Gary’s foot, to which Mr. Fisher agreed.

He and the detective then went to Gary’s room. When they looked at his foot, they observed what appeared to be blood on his right foot. In addition, toenail clippings were taken and tests disclosed human blood on them. Subsequently, an expert compared the footprints made on the lineoleum with footprints taken from Gary and he testified that they were the same. In addition, the expert identified as Gary’s a fingerprint taken from the door frame leading into that room.

When the police arrived, Mrs. Fisher went to her son’s room and awakened him, telling him that someone had stabbed and killed Mrs. Ransier. Gary remained in his room and later when his father and the detective entered his room, he said, “I didn’t *201 kill anyone.” He first told his father and the officer that he had not gone upstairs. When the blood was discovered on his foot, he first said that this had come from a small sore on his leg below the knee which he had discovered bleeding after his bath and which he had wiped off on the bath towel in the basement. However, he soon told his father and the officer that he had been upstairs and that he had done so when he heard the front door open and soon heard the squeal of some car tires. He stated that he went upstairs to see whether Mrs. Ransier had left the house, leaving her children alone. He stated that the hall light was out, but when he entered the room and went close to the bed, he could see that Mrs. Ransier was on the bed, and he then turned around and went back downstairs. He said that at that time he remembered that he hadn’t drained the tub and that he went to do that and was in the basement in the process of doing that when his mother called to ask what he was doing.

Gary was wearing short sleeved, short legged pajamas that night. The officers noticed numerous spots on the front of the pants and shirt but none on the back thereof. These were taken for analysis and the police expert testified that he was able to ascertain that these spots were blood of human origin. It was not enough, however, to ascertain the type.

A towel was recovered from the basement which Gary had used.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

K. L.C. v. Reynolds Cnty. Juvenile Officer
562 S.W.3d 358 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Andrews
329 S.W.3d 369 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2011)
State ex rel. A.J.
27 So. 3d 247 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
In Re State Ex Rel. AJ
27 So. 3d 247 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2009)
In the Interest of C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer
22 S.W.3d 233 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000)
J_ M v. Wallace
812 S.W.2d 925 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
People in Interest of TM
742 P.2d 905 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1987)
P.R.L. v. Juvenile Officer, St. Charles County
719 S.W.2d 144 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
In the Interest of P_ A_ M
606 S.W.2d 449 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
In re K. S. R.
585 S.W.2d 208 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
In the Interest of Johnson
257 N.W.2d 47 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 S.W.2d 198, 1971 Mo. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-fisher-mo-1971.