People v. Creasy

• Decision Date: 13 July 1923
• Citation: 236 N.Y. 205,140 N.E. 563
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CREASY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

236 N.Y. 205

140 N.E. 563

PEOPLE

v.CREASY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 13, 1923.

William M. Creasy was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Pound and Crane, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Nassau County Court.

Henry A. Uterhart and Alfred M. Schaffer, both of New York City, for appellant.

Charles R. Weeks, Dist. Atty., of Mineola (Charles I. Wood, of Mineola, of counsel), for the People.

McLAUGHLIN, J.

About 10:30 o'clock in the evening of June 23, 1922, Edith Lavoy, a teacher in one of the public schools of Freeport, N. Y., died in an apartment occupied by her. Her death was caused by a bullet fired from a 25-caliber automatic revolver which entered her right temple about 2 1/2 inches in front of and 2 inches in a perpendicular line above the opening or auricular canal of the right ear. The course of the bullet was inward, backward, and upward. It passed through the brain to a point about 3 inches above the auricular canal of the left ear and 1 1/2 inches back of it, and lodged in the inner side of the skull. Death was almost instantaneous. The only persons in the room when the shot was fired were the defendant and Miss Lavoy. The revolver belonged to him. He either shot her or she committed suicide. This was the question of the jury to determine. The district attorney so stated in his summation, as did the learned trial judge in his charge. Defendant was immediately taken into custody, subsequently indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree.

The question presented to this court by the appeal is whether defendant had a fair and impartial trial and his conviction was obtained by legal evidence.

[1] After a very careful consideration of the voluminous record, I have reached the conclusion that he did not have a fair trial and that errors of such a substantial character as to prejudice his rights were committed.

In a capital case the statute imposes upon this court, under such circumstances, the duty of reversing a judgment of conviction and ordering a new trial, irrespective of whether or not exceptions were taken. Code of Criminal Procedure, § 528; People v. Jung Hing, 212 N. Y. 393, 106 N. E. 105, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 333;People v. Jackson, 196 N. Y. 357, 362,89 N. E. 924;People v. Fielding, 158 N. Y. 542, 53 N. E. 497,46 L. R. A. 641, 70 Am. St. Rep. 495.

It is necessary, in order to indicate what seem to me to be some of the errors, and the unfairness of the trial, to state a few of the facts. Miss Lavoy was graduated from one of the normal schools of the state when about 20 years of age and thereafter accepted a position as teacher in a public school in the city of Gloversville, N. Y., where she taught about 2 years. While there, she and the defendant, who was then about 28 years of age, became acquainted through a mattrimonialcorrespondence club. In his written application for membership therein he stated that he had never been married, which was untrue, as he was at that time living separate and apart from his wife; she having obtained a judgment of separation. He was a person of limited education, ordinary ability, and moral character not above reproach. The superintendent of the club called Miss Lavoy's attention to him, and she thereupon wrote him the following letter:

‘26 Allen St., Gloversville, N. Y.,

‘March 20th, 1920.

‘Dear Sir: As you have been recommended to me by the Standard Correspondence Club, Grayslake, Ill., as a gentleman matrimonially inclined and desiring lady correspondence with that object in view, and under recommendation of J. W. Schlosser, who sent me your description, I beg permission to open correspondence. If this meets with your approval I will be pleased to hear from you in return. Thanking you in advance, I am,

‘Yours respectfully,

‘(Miss) Edith E. Lavoy.’

Defendant answered this letter, and the correspondence, opened in this informal way, soon ripened into a strong attachment. Her letters, many of which were introduced in evidence, indicate she was a highly emotional, hysterical, and romantic girl. Only a few of his letters were introduced in evidence, the people's witness Mrs. Sheldon testifying that a few days before Miss Lavoy's death she assisted her in destroying them.

After completing her engagement in Gloversville, she accepted a position as a teacher at Freeport, N. Y., and at the time of her death had about finished her second, and entered into a contract for another year. In October, 1920, defendant, who was then employed in a railroad repair shop in Kentucky as a machinist, at Miss Lavoy's invitation, went to Freeport, and for the first time they met. This visit, as indicated by her letters following his return to Kentucky, seems to have increased the favorable impression she had previously formed of him by their correspondence. He again visited her in Freeport in January and April, 1921, and in August at her home in Tupper Lake, N. Y., when their engagement was formally announced by, and with the consent of, her parents. Upon his return to Kentucky he sent her a diamond engagement ring. In September, 1921, she returned to her school at Freeport, but he did not see her again, though frequent letters passed between them, until February, 1922. Upon this visit, their marriage, which, according to his testimony, was to have taken place in July, 1922, was postponed for a year, and this fact was corroborated by one of her letters. On the 19th of March, 1922, she wrote him a very affectionate letter, and following its receipt, according to the defendant, either the last of March or early in April, he wrote her he thought they better stop corresponding; that he then, for the first time, told her of his former marriage and divorce; that she, evidently not believing what he had written, asked him to come to Freeport to see her. On the 23d of April he wrote her a letter which was introduced in evidence, which would seem to indicate she had theretofore written him breaking the engagement. It is a rambling, in many respects incoherent letter, and he testified that it was written at a time when he was getting over a period of intoxication. The substantial part of it would seem to indicate he told the truth. In any event, he went to Freeport, reaching there on the 30th of April or 1st of May. It was during this visit they went, at her suggestion, to a place designated in the record as the ‘Kissing Bridge,’ and while there, or in that vicinity, he said they indulged in target practice with the revolver which subsequently caused her death; that on their way back to her apartment, a dog grabbed hold of his coat, and he took the revolver from his pocket for the purpose of shooting it; that she then got possession of the revolver and retained it until about the 1st of June following; that he told her at that time what he had previously written her, that he could not marry her; that the judgment of separation from his wife had not been made a final judgment of divorce and he did not want her to write him any more. As to this he was corroborated by a special delivery letter from her, mailed on the 12th of May, in which she said:

‘Dear Billie: You said you didn't want me to write any more so am just saying good night.’

The following day he telegraphed her, asking why she did not write him, saying he had been to the races and lost his last dollar. He was corroborated as to her having possession of the revolver by several of her letters, in which she promised to return it, and on June 1st he telegraphed her as follows:

‘Edith, I would feel better satisfied if you would send me that gun you have so often promised. You know why.’

On June 4th she acknowledged receipt of the telegram, and at the same time said she had sent it to him.

Her letters to him from the latter part of May down to about the time of her death indicate she was very unhappy and despondent,expressing several times, a wish that she ‘could die and end it all.’

The defendant testified that a strike had been called in the shop where he was employed, which was to begin on the 1st of July; that in view of that fact he decided to quit his employment in the Kentucky shop, go to Montreal, and obtain a position there if he could; that he accordingly packed his trunk, dressuit case, and a grip, and in the latter put all of Miss Lavoy's letters which he had previously tied up, and all of the things she had given him, with the intention of going to Freeport and returning them to her before going to Montreal; that he checked his trunk to the Grand Central station, in New York, took his suit case and grip with him, and started for New York; that when he reached there he checked his grip, took the suit case, and went to Freeport; that he there hired a room in a boarding house, and about 12 o'clock went to Miss Lavoy's school and remained with her during the noon intermission, they lunching together, she having sent out for some sandwiches and a pie; that he then made an arrangement to call on her that evening at her apartment, which he did, and remained with her until about 10 o'clock; that he then went to his room, where he remained until the following morning, when he met her on the street and went with her to the school; that he then arranged to call on her that evening and on the next day to go with her to New York; that after leaving her at the school he went to the Grand Central station, got his grip, and took it to the Pennsylvania station, where he checked it; that he did this for the purpose of having it conveniently near when they reached the city the following day, when he was going to return to her her letters and the things she had given him; that after checking his grip he went back to Freeport and that evening called upon her about half past 7 o'clock; that when he called, people's witness Mrs. Sheldon, her roommate, was present; that the three remained in the room some time, when Mrs. Sheldon went out, returning between 9 and...