Moore v. United States
Decision Date | 30 October 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 789,789 |
Citation | 37 L.Ed. 996,14 S.Ct. 26,150 U.S. 57 |
Parties | MOORE v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a writ of error upon the conviction of the plaintiff in error for the murder of Charles Palmer on July 25, 1889, in Blue county, Indian Territory. Nelson Moore, defendant's brother, was indicted with him, but was not tried.
Upon the trial of the case, after the witnesses of the government had shown that Charles Palmer, the person alleged to have been murdered by the defendant, was found on the 25th day of May, 1889, the evidence further showing that he had been murdered by some person or persons, the United States attorney proposed to prove that one Camp had disappeared from the same neighborhood during the month of November, 1888, and had not been heard from since; that he was last seen in company with defendant and his brother, Nelson Moore; that Palmer had been trying to find Camp's body; and that defendant knew that he had been investigating Camp's disappearance,—concerning which the testimony of the proposed witness, Kitty Young, (formerly Mrs. Palmer,) relative to said Camp, was substantially as follows:
house to milk the cows. There was no one there. We saw blood in the house, and everything torn up around in the house. We saw a fresh horse wagon tracks which led down into the bottom. We followed it some distance, and noticed where it returned by a different road, and came into the road which passes our house. About 5 days after this, Nelse Moore returned alone with the team and wagon that belonged to Camp. He was wearing Camp's boots. The defendant and Nelse claimed Camp's clothes, horses, watch, wagon, cows, and all the property which Camp had. I have never seen or heard of Camp since the night referred to.
'Mr. Palmer was down in the woods hog hunting on Thursday before he was killed. When he returned that evening, Tom Moore asked him where he had been. Mr. Palmer stated that he had been in the bottom hog hunting. Tom Moore said, 'Yes; I know the kind of hogs you were looking for.'
The court admitted this testimony to show, not that Camp had been killed by defendant, but as a motive for his alleged murder of Palmer. To this the defendant excepted upon the ground that the testimony had a direct tendency to prejudice the minds of the jurors.
The only other error alleged was to the refusal of the court to grant a new trial upon the ground that the verdict 'was not supported by that amount and character of evidence that is required by law.'
Asst. Atty. Gen. Whitney, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The testimony on behalf of the prosecution tended to show that Charles Palmer, who had been seen alive about 12 o'clock, was found lying dead in the road in Sandy Creek bottom, about two miles from his home, at 4 o'clock of the same day. About three or four hundred yards from where the body was found, the defendant, Tom Moore, was seen by two witnesses about 2 or 3 o'clock of the same day, coming towards them, and carrying a Winchester gun. When he saw them he turned off at a fast walk out of sight. The wounds in Palmer's body were made with a Winchester gun or a pistol. Defendant was a person of no means, living with his brother, Nelson Moore, about a quarter of a mile from Palmer's, for whom he had been at work, clearing his land. Palmer's land was rented from an Indian. This land was also claimed by a full-blooded Choctaw woman named Lizzie Lishtubbi. Four days before the murder, defendant Moore married this woman. He had previously boasted that he was going to marry the woman and get the land; 'that she was old and would not live long, and he would get a good stake.' One of the witness told him that he would have trouble over...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Battles v. State
...v. Sawtelle, 141 Mass. 140, 5 N. E. 312; Maynard v. People, 135 Ill. 432, 25 N. E. 740; Underhill, Cr. Ev. § 321; Moore v. U. S., 150 U. S. 57, 14 Sup. Ct. 26, 37 L. Ed. 996; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419, 2 N. E. 808; 3 Greenl. Ev. § 15; Bloomer v. State, 48 Md. 521, 3 Am. Cr. Rep. 41; Com......
-
Sorenson v. United States
... ... [168 F. 793] ... such statement without affirmatively showing it to have been ... made or acquiesced in by the defendant would be to announce a ... rule fraught with danger to innocent men. Commonwealth v ... Kenney, 12 Metc. (Mass.) 235, 46 Am.Dec. 672; Moore ... v. Smith, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 393 ... It is ... true that Willey claims that he was friendly with Sorenson up ... to the time of the trial of this case; but that the relation ... must have been strained is evident from the fact that he ... claims Sorenson was principally ... ...
-
United States v. Oil Co Oil Co v. United States
...on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence would not be subject to review. Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 61, 62, 14 S.Ct. 26, 28, 37 L.Ed. 996; J. W. Bishop Co. v. Shelhorse, 4 Cir., 141 F. 643, 648; O'Donnell v. New York Transp. Co., 2 Cir., 187 F. 109, 1......
-
State v. Osman
...of circumstantial facts usually, and almost necessarily, depend upon their connection with each other"; Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 61, 14 S.Ct. 26, 37 L.Ed. 996 (1893); we recognize that "[i]t is not one fact, but the cumulative impact of a multitude of facts which establishes gui......