People v. Morse

Citation89 N.E. 816,196 N.Y. 306
PartiesPEOPLE v. MORSE.
Decision Date09 November 1909
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Kings County Court.

William Morse was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

William W. Wingate, for appellant.

John F. Clarke, Dist. Atty. (Peter P. Smith, of counsel), for the People.

CHASE, J.

A jury has found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. At the trial he did not call any witnesses in his behalf, and the evidence for the people is uncontradicted. From the evidence it appears that the defendant, on the evening of November 14, 1907, came up behind a woman who was walking upon one of the public streets of the borough of Brooklyn, city of New York, and grabbed a large pocketbook which she was carrying in her hand. She held to the pocketbook, and struggled to retain it. The defendant succeeded in wrenching it from her hand, and ran as the woman screamed and called, ‘Stop thief!’ Her cries were heard by two young men in the vicinity, who ran after and overtook the defendant while he was on a sidewalk, and they jumped upon and held him. A struggle ensued, during which the defendant drew from his pocket a revolver and fired a shot which failed to hit either of the young men. They, however, released their hold upon the defendant, and he continued to run in the direction in which he had been running, and the young men followed him. After running about 200 feet from where he fired the first shot, he came toward a policeman, who had been attracted by the shot and was then running towards the defendant from the opposite direction, and when the defendant met the policeman, or came within about 5 feet of him, he fired a shot which caused the wound resulting in the policeman's death about two hours thereafter. The defendant then continued running, and the young men came upon the policeman as he staggered into the gutter, and they called upon him for his revolver, which he produced from his pocket and gave to one of them, and he gave his night stick to the other. They followed the defendant, and the one with the revolver fired in the air or at the defendant five times without hitting him. The defendant continued with the young men and others following him until he ran into a dark alley under a building, where he was subsequently arrested by other officers. His revolver was found on the ground in the alley, and it contained five cartridges, two of which had been discharged and three of which were undischarged. The identity of the defendant as the person who took the pocketbook from the woman and who subsequently shot and killed the policeman is beyond controversy.

The defendant urges that the judgment of conviction should be reversed, because, as he asserts, several errors were committed during the trial which seriously prejudiced his right. We will briefly state and consider separately some of such alleged errors.

1. The evidence is not sufficient on which to find, as a fact, that the defendant shot the policeman from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect his death.

It appears that the defendant, some days prior to the homicide, had the revolver with which he did the shooting, and it was then in his trunk in the room occupied by him. On the night of the homicide he had the revolver in his pocket. He did not put it in his pocket for any known, lawful purpose. The inference is permissible that he carried the revolver to shoot and kill, if necessary to prevent capture, in case he committed a crime. His readiness to use the revolver to avoid detention and arrest is shown, not only from his shooting the policeman, but from his firing the shot while he was struggling with the young men, who were holding him as we have stated. Where a person commits highway robbery or other crime in such a deliberate, intentional, and premeditated manner as shown by the circumstances in this case, and then uses a revolver carried by him with fatal effect in his effort to avoid arrest, it presents a question for the determination of a jury whether the person so killed was not killed by the deliberate and premeditated intention of the one firing the shot. People v. Sullivan, 173 N. Y. 122, 65 N. E. 989, 63 L. R. A. 353, 93 Am. St. Rep. 582; People v. Huter, 184 N. Y. 237, 77 N. E. 6.

There are in this case, however, further facts which were proper to leave to the jury upon the question of intent, deliberation and premeditation, and they are that the defendant was running in a public street where the approach of an officer in the opposite direction must have been seen by him for an appreciable space of time, and his firing the revolver directly at the officer, when the result would necessarily or probably be fatal, is of itself some evidence from which the jury might...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • People v. Rooks
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • September 24, 1963
    ...the evidence of the rape, as part of the confession itself, is probably admissible to show motive for the design murder, People v. Morse, 196 N.Y. 306, 89 N.E. 816, the testimony of the medical examiner concerning the marks of rape tends to prove commission of another crime not charged in t......
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2013
    ...359 N.E.2d 371 [1976], and People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932–933, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850 [1975], and citing People v. Morse, 196 N.Y. 306, 310, 89 N.E. 816 [1909], and People v. Governale, 193 N.Y. 581, 587, 86 N.E. 554 [1908] ). The purpose is to assist the jury “to sort out am......
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2013
    ...359 N.E.2d 371 [1976], and People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932–933, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850 [1975], and citing People v. Morse, 196 N.Y. 306, 310, 89 N.E. 816 [1909], and People v. Governale, 193 N.Y. 581, 587, 86 N.E. 554 [1908] ). The purpose is to assist the jury “to sort out am......
  • People v. Morris
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • October 15, 2013
    ...359 N.E.2d 371 [1976], and People v. Gines, 36 N.Y.2d 932, 932–933, 373 N.Y.S.2d 543, 335 N.E.2d 850 [1975], and citing People v. Morse, 196 N.Y. 306, 310, 89 N.E. 816 [1909], and People v. Governale, 193 N.Y. 581, 587, 86 N.E. 554 [1908] ). The purpose is to assist the jury “to sort out am......
  • 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