People v. Schmidt
| Decision Date | 26 November 1901 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SCHMIDT. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from trial term, Columbia county.
John Schmidt was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
A. Frank B. Chace and Alfred Bruce Chace, for appellant.
Mark Duntz, Dist. Atty. (J. Rider Cady, of counsel), for the People.
The appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree in having killed William Hilderbrandt at the town of Claverack, in the county of Columbia, on September 12, 1893. The defendant, a man of some 50 years of age at the time of the crime, was a native of Polish Prussia, coming to this country about the year 1882, and from that time he had worked here as a mason or plasterer and at farm labor. His knowledge of English was imperfect, and he seems to have been able to understand the language better than he could speak it. For some years previous to 1891 he had been engaged working on a farm in Columbia county. In February of that year he married Dora Hilderbrandt, also a German. She was the mother of the deceased, William Hilderbrandt, a lad of 19 or 20 years, who at the time of her marriage was still in Germany; the woman having left her family there when she came to this country in 1891. From the marriage to the commission of the homicide the defendant and his wife lived during a part of the time in Columbia county, and at other times in New Jersey and Maryland. In June, [168 N.Y. 571]1893, while the defendant was living in Greeneville, N. J., he purchased, partly or wholly at his own expense, a ticket from Germany to this country, which was sent to the deceased, and on which the latter obtained his passage to New York. On his arrival he went to live with his mother and stepfather. In August the defendant, with his wife and his stepson, the deceased, returned to Columbia county, moved into a small tenant house in the town of Ghent, and again entered upon farm work. He also did some trapping of small fur-bearing animals. On the day of the homicide the defendant and the deceased had been working in the fields. They returned home at the close of the afternoon, carrying a woodchuck, which had been caught in a trap. Wesley Stickles, who lived immediately across the road from the defendant, had some conversation with them at this time. Afterwards, between 6 and 7 o'clock, he saw them leave the house together, and walk along the road towards Philmont. This is the last time Hilderbrandt was seen alive. The only witness as to what occurred immediately prior to their departure was the defendant's wife. She testified that when the two men were home at noon the defendant said that he wanted to go to Philmont to get some meat, to which she replied that she did not want meat; that they had meat enough in the house. After supper the defendant asked the deceased if he wanted to go to Philmont with him (the defendant). This seems to have been substantially all the conversation between them. About 9 o'clock that evening the defendant returned home alone. The testimony of his statements to his wife as to what had become of the deceased was excluded on the defendant's objection that they were privileged communications. Their nature can be readily inferred, however, from what transpired the next day. On that day Schmidt and his wife went to a friend named Steitz, a hotel keeper in the town of Ghent. In the conversation which ensued between the parties the defendant's wife, the mother of the deceased, told Steitz that her son had been arrested, and taken away, and asked him to go with them to Hudson to find out where her boy was. Steitz asked how she knew the deceased had been arrested. To this the defendant replied: Meanwhile, on the afternoon of Wednesday, September 13th, the crew on a freight train on the Harlem Railroad, while running through the town of Claverack, noticed the body of a man lying on a culvert passing under the roadbed. The culvert was about a mile distant from Philmont. On its return trip the next morning (Thursday) the train was stopped in the vicinity of this culvert, and there was found the body of the deceased. Death had occurred many hours before. The skull had been fractured, and an indentation made in the head large enough to receive an orange. There had been great loss of blood. At this point the railroad ran on a bank about 18 feet above the grade or level of the culvert. Grass grew on the slopes to a distance of some 4 feet from the rails. At the foot of the slope, but between the rails and the mouth of the culvert, there was a low fence. At the edge of the grass towards the rails a large pocket or jack knife was found. The knife was closed. About 6 feet further away there was seen a pool of blood. The fence was partially broken down, and smaller spots of blood were discovered between this point and that at which the body lay. A few feet from the body was found a hammer, which was identified as belonging to the defendant. The body was removed to Philmont, and an autopsy showed that the wound on the head was the cause of death. The defendant was arrested at his home, and was being taken to the county jail in Hudson, when, owing to the negligence of the officers, he succeeded in escaping from custody, and was not recaptured till June, 1898, when he came to the residence of one Staats, in Columbia county, for whom he had formerly worked. In conversation he told Staats that he struck the boy with the hammer, but claimed that there had been trouble between them, and that he had acted in self-defense. While confined in the county jail awaiting his trial, he had conversation with two of his keepers. to one of the keepers he said that he had killed the deceased ‘because The boy was in bed with his mother, my wife,’ though on another occasion he told him that he had trouble with the boy when setting the trap, and the boy threatened to hit him with a corn hook; to the other, that he hit the deceased in the head with a hammer, and the reason for it was ‘the boy was sleeping with his wife and he [the defendant] had to sleep in a corner of the house.’
Such are the outlines of the case made by the prosecution. The defense rested on the evidence of the defendant himself. He testified that on the evening of the homicide he went with the deceased, not to purchase meat, but to set traps, taking with him a hammer to drive stakes to which the traps were to be fastened; that while passing along the railroad track he noticed the culvert, and thought its mouth would be a good place to set a trap; that the deceased asked to be permitted to set one of the traps; that the defendant gave him one; that the deceased caught his fingers in the trap, and asked the defendant to open it so as to get his fingers out; that the defendant opened the trap, the deceased extricated his fingers, and thereupon struck the defendant with his fist, saying, ‘I will give it to you now;’ that the defendant staggered, and then the deceased said, ‘I will give you more,’ put his hand in his pocket, and drew out a corn hook or a knife; and that thereupon the defendant struck him with the hammer on the head. On further examination he admitted telling his wife that her son had been arrested, but gave as a reason for the statement that he was afraid to tell the truth. He testified that he did not mean to kill the deceased; that, after he had struck the deceased, he moved him to the side of the culvert, and that when he left him there the deceased was still living. He denied making the statement to which the jail keepers had testified. Evidence was given tending to show that the defendant's character was good with the qualification that he had a quick temper.
On this record the killing of the deceased by the defendant stands admitted. The story told by the defendant in exculpation of his act was discredited by the jury, and justly so. It was on its face grossly improbable. No corn hook was found at the scene of the crime, but a mere pocketknife, and that closed. From the location of the pool of blood and the place where the knife was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morris
...... own decisions in State v. Ross, supra, and Parker v. State,. supra. But the California cases themselves are not in. harmony. People v. Pette, (Calif.) 202 P. 51;. People v. Mahatch, (Calif.) 82 P. 779; People v. Machuca, (Calif.) 109 P. 886. Premeditation is an. essential ...Va.) 15 S.E. 419; Warren v. Com., . 37 Pa. 45; Com. v. Straesser, (Pa.) 26 A. 17;. Rigsby v. State, (Ind.) 91 N.E. 925; People v. Schmidt, (N. Y.) 61 N.E. 907; Leonard v. State,. (Tenn.) 292 S.W. 849; State v. Gartrell, 71. S.W. 1045; State v. Krampe, (Ia.) 140 N.W. 898;. ......
-
People v. Cohen
...U.S. 164, 173, 174, 26 S.Ct. 189, 50 L.Ed. 421; Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175, 20 S.Ct. 77, 44 L.Ed. 119; People v. Schmidt, 168 N.Y. 568, 577, 578, 61 N.E. 907, 910; Dolan v. People, 64 N.Y. 485, As Chief Judge Lehman said in a concurring opinion, 'the exclusion of persons not sho......
-
Bostic v. United States
...preceding and surrounding the killing whether reflection and consideration amounting to deliberation actually occurred. People v. Schmidt, 168 N.Y. 568, 61 N.E. 907; State v. Smith, supra, 49 Conn. 376, at page 389. If so, even though it may have been of exceedingly brief duration, that is ......
-
People v. Ozarowski
...a defense, since defendant is presumed to have intended the natural and necessary consequences of his acts (People v. Schmidt, 168 N.Y. 568, 574, 576, 61 N.E. 907, 909, 910). 'The weapon used and the vital part of the body on which the blow was inflicted justified the jury in finding that t......