People v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 22 November 1927
• Citation: 159 N.E. 408,246 N.Y. 491
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SNYDER et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

246 N.Y. 491

159 N.E. 408

PEOPLE

v.SNYDER et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1927.

Ruth Snyder and another were convicted of first degree murder, and they appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Trial Term, Queens County.

Edgar F. Hazleton, of Jamaica, and Joseph Lonardo and Dana Wallace, both of Long Island City, for appellant Ruth Snyder.

Samuel L. Miller, William J. Millard, and Maurice S. Feingold, all of New York City, for appellant Henry Judd Gray.

Richard S. Newcombe, Dist. Atty., of New York City (Charles W. Froessel, of Brooklyn, and James J. Conroy, of New York City, of counsel), for the People.

LEHMAN, J.

On March 20, 1927, Albert Snyder was killed while lying in bed at his home at Queens Village near Jamaica, N. Y. His wife, the defendant Ruth Snyder, and their young daughter, were in the house at the time. The child's sleep was unbroken till Ruth Snyder awoke her some hours after Snyder was killed. Mrs. Snyder had been tied hand and foot, so she claimed, by robbers, and had become unconscious from fright and shock. The disturbed condition of the house seemed to corroborate her story that her husband had been killed by men who entered the house to steal. Nevertheless, the police suspected the story. After questioning, she broke down and confessed that Henry Judd Gray had killed her husband and that after the murder he had, with her acquiescence, tied her hands and feet in order to divert suspicion from themselves. Though in the confession she attempted to place the larger part of the blame upon Henry Judd Gray, yet she admitted acts on her part from which the conclusion of her own guilty participation might be drawn with confidence. Henry Judd Gray was thereafter apprehended in Syracuse. He claimed, at first, that he had been in his room in a Syracuse hotel at the time of the murder. After questioning, he, too, confessed. According to that confession he had gone to Queens Village from Syracuse the evening before the murder and returned to Syracuse the next morning. He had, in advance arranged with Mrs. Snyder that they should kill her husband that night. Preparation was complete, and he believed that he had successfully manufactured evidence which would show, if he were accused of the murder, that he was at the time in Syracuse. According to his confession Mrs. Snyder played a greater part in the murder than she admitted, but each confession if accepted as true would be sufficient to establish the guilt of the person making it for the crime of murder of Albert Snyder. Additional proof, which in this case was incontrovertible that the crime charged had been committed, was of course available as required by section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the confessions would warrant conviction.

The defendants were jointly indicted. Mrs. Snyder moved for a separate trial. The defendant Henry Judd Gray joined with the state in opposing the motion. It was denied by the trial judge, and the defendants were thereafter tried together, and both have been convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree.

Extended analysis of the testimony produced at the trial would serve no serious purpose. Both defendants testified in their own behalf. Each attempted personal exculpation by throwing as much of the blame as possible upon the other. Mrs. Snyder testified that her confession was not voluntary but was obtained by pressure which in her nervous condition she could not withstand. She attempted, according to her story to dissuade the defendant Gray from carrying out his plan of murder. She tried to stop him while he was actually committing the murder, and only fear induced her to join with him thereafter in the attempt to cover up all possible traces which might lead to suspicion against them. Henry Judd Gray's testimony was intended to show that he was only a blind tool, with mind and will so weakened by indulgence in intoxicating liquors and other excesses that he was incapable of resistance to a stronger personality, incapable in his then state of mind of deliberation or premeditation. A mass of circumstances belied the claim of exculpation of either. The jury might well find that each defendant by testimony in open court has established the guilt of both.

[1] Throughout the trial and in his charge, the trial justice with scrupulous care protected the rights of both defendants. He pointed out to the jury that they might not consider the confession of either as evidence against the other. He allowed the jury to pass upon every contention of innocence presented by either defendant, though for some of these contentions there is little, if any, basis in the testimony. Wherever at the trial there was possible room for doubt as to a ruling to be made or charge to be given, he resolved that doubt in favor of the defendants. They have been found guilty upon evidence which is clearly sufficient, after a trial in which no rulings have been made of which they may reasonably complain. The only question which remains for consideration is whether the denial of Mrs. Snyder's preliminary motion for a separate trial resulted in depriving them or either of them of a fair trial.

Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as recently amended (Laws 1926, c. 461) provides that defendants jointly indicted may be tried separately or jointly in the discretion of the court. It may be assumed that the Legislature did not...