People v. Chacon

Decision Date13 April 1886
Citation6 N.E. 303,102 N.Y. 669
PartiesPEOPLE v. CHACON.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Charles S. Spencer, for appellant.

De Lancey Nicoll, for respondent.

EARL, J.

The defendant was convicted of shooting with a pistol, and thus murdering, Maria Williams, in the city of New York, on the twentieth day of June, 1884. The killing is undisputed, and there was abundant evidence of premeditation and deliberation to justify the conviction. We have only to deal with exceptions taken at the trial, and but one of those, about which there was a difference of opinion among the judges composing the general term, is of sufficient importance to require special notice.

Munroe Williams, the husband of the victim, was the principal witness for the prosecution. He was the only person besides the defendant who saw the killing, and who testified to what took place at the time. He testified that he and his wife stood near each other, and that the defendant fired three shots, two at him, and one, the fatal shot, at her. Upon cross-examination by defendant's counsel Williams was asked questions, and gave answers, as follows:

‘Why do you tell this jury that the two first shots were fired at you, and that that last shot was fired at this poor girl, who is dead? Answer. Because I was in the bedroom door, and that was the shot that struck her. Q. Have you any other reason to say that the third shot was fired at your wife, except you moved your position? A. No reason more than he had threatened to kill her, and that was his only opportunity. [On motion of defendant's counsel the court struck out this answer.] Q. Now, sir, did you ever hear this man make a threat against your wife? A. Not in my presence. [On motion of defendant's counsel, the court also struck out this answer.] Q. Now, I again ask you this: You have testified to this jury that the first two shots were fired at you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, sir, can you give to this jury any reason why they were fired at you? I ask, of your own knowledge, can you give us any reason, aside from the fact that you had stepped one side, for telling us that he fired that last shot at your wife? Yes or no. A. The only reasons I could give is that he has threatened to take her life, and that was his only opportunity, and he fired at her. [The counsel for the defendant moved to strike out this answer, and the court denied the motion, and he excepted.] Q. I again ask you if you ever heard him make any such threat? A. Not in my presence. [The counsel for the defendant again moved to strike out the evidence as to the threat, and the court denied the motion, and he excepted.]

These two exceptions are now claimed by the counsel for the defendant to have been well taken, and to point out a serious error, for which this judgment should be reversed. We think otherwise.As to the first exception, the witness was asked to answer the question, ‘Yes or no,’ and when the defendant's counsel observed that he was not answering the question in that way, and was proceeding to give the same answer which had once been stricken out, he should have stopped the witness, and arrested the answer. He could not lie by, and speculate on the chances of first hearing what the witness would testify to, and then, when he found the testimony unsatisfactory, move to strike it out. Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349. Whether the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Hintz v. Wagner
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1913
    ... ... testimony, or a question for the jury. Kline v. Kansas ... City, St. J. & C. B. R. Co. 50 Iowa 659; People v ... Hare, 57 Mich. 505, 24 N.W. 843; Yost v ... Conroy, 92 Ind. 471, 47 Am. Rep. 156; Smith v. Northen ... P. R. Co. 3 N.D. 561, 58 N.W ... v. Kendall, 178 Mass ... 232, 51 L.R.A. 781, 86 Am. St. Rep. 478, 59 N.E. 657, 9 Am ... Neg. Rep. 496; People v. Chacon, 102 N.Y. 669, 6 ... N.E. 303; Butts County v. Hixon, 135 Ga. 26, 68 S.E ... 786; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Huey, Tex. Civ ... App. , ... ...
  • Hickman v. Green
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1894
    ... ... 95; State v. Hope , 100 Mo ... 347, 13 S.W. 490; 1 Rice on Evidence, secs. 258 and 259; ... Quin v. Lloyd , 41 N.Y. 349; People v ... Chacon , 102 N.Y. 669, 6 N.E. 303; Berry v ... Hartzell , 91 Mo. 132, 3 S.W. 582 ...          II. The ... important question ... ...
  • The State v. Marcks
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1897
    ... ... Witten, ... 100 Mo. 525; State v. Cunningham, 100 Mo. 382; ... State v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 410; Barney v. The ... People, 22 Ill. 160. (4) To establish the crime of rape ... it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ... actual resistance. A passive ... later in the trial. Maxwell v. Railroad , 85 Mo. 95; ... State v. Hope , 100 Mo. 347, 13 S.W. 490; People ... v. Chacon , 102 N.Y. 669, 6 N.E. 303; Miller v ... Montgomery , 78 N.Y. 282; Quin v. Lloyd , 41 N.Y ... 349; Barkly v. Copeland , 86 Cal. 483; 1 Rice, ... ...
  • Hickman v. Green
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1894
    ...Railroad Co., 85 Mo. 95; State v. Hope, 100 Mo. 347, 13 S. W. 490; 1 Rice, Ev. §§ 258, 259; Quin v. Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349; People v. Chacon, 102 N. Y. 669, 16 N. E. 303; Berry v. Hartzell, 91 Mo. 132, 3 S. W. 2. The important question in this case is that of notice to Mrs. Green of the execut......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT