People v. Hill

Decision Date04 March 1910
Citation91 N.E. 272,198 N.Y. 64
PartiesPEOPLE v. HILL.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Chenango County.

Earl Hill was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

See, also, 90 N. E. 339.

William H. Sullivan, for appellant.

James P. Hill, for the People.

HISCOCK, J.

The defendant was jointly indicted with one Borst for murder in the first degree in causing the death of one Davis and thereafter on a separate trial convicted of the crime.

While the evidence of defendant's guilt was entirely circumstantial, I think that it was sufficient to fully warrant the verdict which was found. The jury were permitted to find him guilty either on the theory that he actually personally killed Davis, or that he acted in concert with and aided and abetted Borst, who directly caused the death. I shall briefly state some of the important facts which were developed on the trial tending to prove the defendant's guilt.

Davis was a farmer living in the town of Bainbridge, county of Chenango. The defendant, Hill, who at the time of the alleged crime on August 26, 1908, was a young man 19 or 20 years of age, had worked for Davis, and, therefore, was acquainted with his farm and with his habits. In the neighborhood of 4 o'clock on the afternoon of the day mentioned, Davis started for a somewhat distant and secluded portion of his farm for the purpose of gathering in some cows, and in the evening he was found by a searching party with several bullet holes in his body and evidently having been dead for some time. The defendant and Borst, who was a little older than he, had been seen together more or less before the day of the homicide. At about 5 o'clock in the afternoon of that day, they came to Davis' house, and there made some inquiries of his wife concerning her husband and made some suggestions calculated to excite her anxiety about his whereabouts; the inference being, especially in view of a statement subsequently made by defendant, that they desired to get her away from the house for the purpose of burglarizing the latter. Subsequently, and at about 6 o'clock, the two men were seen running in a direction leading from the spot where Davis was found, and there is evidence that before both of the events last narrated shots had been heard in the locality where Davis met his death. While a revolver had been placed in one of the hands of the deceased, presumably for the purpose of creating a belief of suicide, there was no evidence, and really no suggestion on the trial, that his death was the result of anything other than deliberate murder. A few days before the murder, two houses not far distant from the locality had been burglarized, and amongst other things three revolvers taken therefrom, and the evidence, including his own statement, indicated that defendant had taken part in these burglaries. One of the revolvers thus stolen was the one found in the hand of the deceased; another one was given by the defendant to a woman shortly after the murder; and the third one was subsequently discovered hidden in a cellar near which defendant had been seen shortly after the murder. A watch which belonged to and was carried by the deceased at the time of his death was subsequently pawned at a village not far away, and the defendant identified as the person who had pawned it, and a pawn ticket taken from his possession after the murder identified as the one which was given for the watch. In addition to these facts, and others of less importance fairly well established by the evidence, there was testimony of admissions made by the defendant a few days after the murder to a group of people, including some police officers, and still later to persons confined in the jail with him, which tended to establish his connection with the murder, although it is to be stated that in the first and more reliable confessions he took the position that Borst did the shooting without his procurement.

Defendant attempted to establish irrational acts on his part at times preceding the murder, and, although this evidence was scarcely sufficient to create a conjecture that he might be irresponsible, that question was submitted to the jury.

On this appeal the defendant's counsel does not contend that the evidence produced did not fairly justify the jury in finding him guilty as they did, or that their verdict with any reason can be said to be against the weight of evidence. He simply argues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Wong
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 6 Agosto 1992
    ...the People never prove which role he played (see, People v. Benzinger, 36 N.Y.2d 29, 34, 364 N.Y.S.2d 855, 324 N.E.2d 334; People v. Hill, 198 N.Y. 64, 66, 91 N.E. 272). Similarly, where it is not possible to prove which defendant's act of violence actually caused the victim's death, each m......
  • State v. Cantrell
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 18 Noviembre 1947
    ... ... to make a transaction a misdemeanor under one statute, and to ... make the same transaction a felony under another statute ... People v. Peers, 307 Ill. 539, 139 N.E. 13, 15 ... The ... normal function of a witness is merely to state facts within ... his personal ... 221; Pinckard vs. State, 62 Tex. Crim. 602, 138 S.W ... 601; Miller vs. State 131 Tex. Cr. Rep. 166, 101 ... S.W. 2d 235; People vs. Hill, 198 N.Y. 64, 91 N.E ... 272; State vs. Thompson 224 N.C. 661, 32 S.E.2d 24; ... 16 C. J. 629, Section 1247 ... In ... State vs ... ...
  • People v. Condon
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 1970
    ...than the similarity thereof, in order to permit evidence of the uncharged crime to aid in the proof of the one charged (see People v. Hill, 198 N.Y. 64, 91 N.E. 272; People v. Thau, 219 N.Y. 39, 113 N.E. 556; People v. Sharp, 107 N.Y. 427, 471, 14 N.E. 319). This is not to say, however, tha......
  • People v. Zackowitz
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 8 Julio 1930
    ...connected with the crime as to identify the perpetrator, if he had dropped them, for example, at the scene of the affray. People v. Hill, 198 N. Y. 64, 91 N. E. 272. They would then have been admissible as tending to implicate the possessor (if identity was disputed), no matter what the opp......
  • 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