French v. State

Decision Date22 May 1896
Citation67 N.W. 706,93 Wis. 325
PartiesFRENCH v. STATE.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Ashland county; John K. Parish, Judge.

William G. French was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.

A former conviction of the plaintiff in error for the murder of Gavin M. Steele was reversed, and a new trial granted. 85 Wis. 400, 55 N. W. 566. The case came on for another trial, when an affidavit of the defendant was filed that the circuit judge was prejudiced, and a motion was made for a change of venue to Chippewa county, which was granted, but the order was subsequently vacated by consent. The court required the defendant to elect whether he would withdraw the affidavit of prejudice which had been filed, or whether he would move thereon for a change of venue. The defendant's counsel then withdrew the affidavit, without prejudice to his right to file another before the trial commenced. Subsequently the defendant moved to refile the affidavit, and renewed the motion for a change of venue, on condition that the court should not send the case out of the county, and that unless the court called in another judge to try the case the defendant withdrew his affidavit and motion. The court held that the motion must be made in the usual form, and unconditionally, and overruled the motion as thus made. The district attorney filed an information that there was a probability that the defendant was then insane, and suggesting that an inquisition be made as to his sanity. The defendant's counsel objected on the ground that the defense of insanity would be made, and that section 4700, Rev. St., providing for such inquisition, was in conflict with section 7, art. 1, Const. Wis., and void, and demanded that the trial proceed on the issues already formed. The objections and demand were overruled. The jury, upon such inquisition, found the defendant sane enough at that time to stand his trial. A special plea of insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense was interposed, upon which issue was taken. The defendant filed his affidavit alleging that W. F. Shea, proposed as assistant prosecutor, for various reasons, was not a proper person to act as such, and considerable evidence was adduced upon this point. The court held that he was not retained by any private person in this case, or any other founded on the same facts, and, as he was otherwise competent, overruled the objections. A trial was then had upon the issue of insanity, and the jury failed to agree, and were discharged. Another jury was then impaneled to try the defendant on the general plea of not guilty, and the question of the defendant's sanity, as involved therein, as required by the statute (Sanb. & B. Ann. St. § 4697). The defendant's counsel asked that the court proceed to another trial on the special plea, but this request was denied. The defendant's counsel then moved to admit the homicide, and to allege in defense that the defendant was insane at the time, but upon the express condition that such admission should give him the affirmative of the case; but the district attorney refused to accept the proposition, and the court held that the state would take the burden of proof, and proceed in the usual way.

The circumstances of the killing, which took place March 5, 1891, in the drug store of the deceased, as shown on the part of the state, were, that French came in, and made a demand of Steele for some money the latter had for safe-keeping, which he repeated; Steele asking Mrs. French, who was present, if he should give French the money. She said, “No, no, Will; you don't need it.” French said to Steele, “G___d d___n you! I will make you give it to me.” Steele said, “You know that you can't make me give it to you.” French then drew a revolver from his pocket, and said, “Steele, G___d d___n you! die!” and shot him. He shot at Steele three times. They were face to face, about 8 or 10 feet apart. Steele died almost instantly. About a minute after, French came and looked at him, and said “Poor Gavin! The best friend I or my family ever had!” Others testified to the same statement. There were several witnesses to the killing. Two testified that French said, after the shooting, He has always been a traitor in our family.” The witnesses said that French seemed excited, angry; some of them, that they thought he was under the influence of liquor,--his eyes looked bright, inflamed. They all thought him sane, from what they knew and saw of him. The evidence tended to show that French had been given to excessive drinking, and Steele and others had put up powders to relieve him; that he insisted on having morphine powders, and they gave him quinine instead. Dr. Reinhart testified to seeing French on the day of the homicide, and in the afternoon at the jail; that, up to the time of the homicide, he saw nothing that would cause him to believe him insane. At the jail his actions were not those of a man in his right mind. He was very much excited and nervous; wanted bromide to quiet him. He went on talking about the trouble in a rather incoherent and excitable manner. He said he was right in the matter; that God had directed him. Mentioned certain little improprieties that were going on in his family, and he thought Steele was assisting persons to carry them out. His conversation was such as you might expect from a man not mentally sound. His appearance and actions were not those of a man in his right senses, but there was an excitement which would cover up the ordinary symptoms of insanity. Very considerable evidence was given on the part of the state, by nonexperts, tending to show that in their opinion the defendant was sane at the time previous to the homicide when they conversed with him. The cashier of the Northern National Bank testified to his calling on him on the morning in question to get a loan of money; had various deals with him; judged he was under the influence of liquor, but thought he was sane. Louise Doucette testified: That she was working at the defendant's house the day Steele was shot. That the defendant came home at 11 o'clock in the forenoon; wanted a cup of coffee; said he was going up to Steele's, and if Steele did not give him his money he would shoot him. Steele was taking his meals at defendant's house at the time. A Mr. Duket had been boarding there up to within about three weeks. That the defendant had been often under the influence of liquor, particularly just before the shooting. On cross-examination she testified that when he came to the house that day he looked wild, his eyes were glassy, and he looked pale, and was trembling. He said, “The devil has always been before me, and now he has got to get behind me.” Two days before he said, “Louise, things have been getting pretty serious at the house for some time,” and she told him “Yes.” Asked if she saw Duket stroke Mrs. French's face, and she told him “Yes.” He talked about powders being put in his coffee, that made him sick. This was before he went to Marengo. Two hypothetical questions, of considerable length, founded on the evidence as claimed by the prosecution, were propounded to an expert witness of extensive experience, who testified that he did not see in the facts embraced in them any evidence which indicated to his mind that the defendant was insane; that in his opinion the defendant was sane.

On the part of the defense, considerable evidence was given tending to show insanity on the part of the defendant before and when the homicide occurred. One Rea, his brother-in-law, testified that he came to his house in the afternoon (four days before the homicide). Was very much excited, and seemed in great trouble. He burst out crying, then he would curse a while, and would pray a while. Said he had great trouble in his family; there were parties trying to ruin his home. He was very much excited, and looked dangerous. His eyes were glassy looking, and he trembled and seemed very nervous. He said Gavin M. Steele and Duket were trying to ruin his home, and he spoke incoherently. The burden of his song was that Steele and Duket were trying to conspire against him, to ruin his home and family. Said he had been shot at, and the ball passed over his shoulder, when he was on the way to the camp at Marengo. He remained at the house of witness during the night, and until 8 or 9 o'clock the next morning. Saw him quite often during the night, and there was no change in his condition, the strain of his conversation being that Steele and Duket were trying to wreck his home. There was nothing to indicate that he was in a state of intoxication, or that he had been drinking. Thought he was insane, but knew he had been periodically addicted to the use of liquors for years. He did not undress, but his father laid down on the bed beside him, and his sister also stayed with him. Mrs. Rea's evidence was to the same effect, and that the defendant said Steele had given a dirk knife to Nugent to kill him, and his life was in danger; that they were conspiring to kill him, and he could not turn around but he met these things face to face; that powders had been given by his wife, or Steele, to curse or kill him. He raved all night,--all about his family troubles,--his wife; his children were homeless, and Duket was trying to take his place; that his home was wrecked and ruined, and his peace of mind gone. She thought he was insane. He got up in the night to take his revolver from her, and put it back in his coat pocket, and said, “Leave it alone,” and he watched it all night,--kept his eye on it. He got up a second time to see if the detectives were watching his house. He had two of them watching his house. He said he had hired them to watch Duket, and see that he did not enter his home. The defendant's father gave similar evidence, and that Duket frequently went to see Mrs. French, and was very attentive to her, while the defendant was absent at his camp;...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Mendoza
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 4 Octubre 1977
    ...change must be referable to some statute which is in harmony with the guaranteed right, unless such right may be waived. French v. State, 93 Wis. 325, 67 N.W. 706. The Statutes, at section 4680 (Stats. 1898), provide for a change of venue in specified circumstances upon application of the a......
  • State ex rel. Fox v. La Porte Circuit Court
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 17 Diciembre 1956
    ...right to read into the State Constitution a provision which is neither expressed nor fairly and reasonably implied. In French v. State, 1896, 93 Wis. 325, 67 N.W. 706, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had before it a question similar to the one here Article 1, § 7 of the Wisconsin Constitutio......
  • Cooper v. Oklahoma
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 16 Abril 1996
    ...Procedure has made any radical change in the mode of procedure or the character of the [competency] proceedings"); French v. State, 67 N. W. 706, 710 (Wis. 1896) ("The statute . . . providing for an inquisition, where there is a probability that the accused is, at the time of his trial, ins......
  • Oborn v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 24 Mayo 1910
    ...change must be referable to some statute which is in harmony with the guaranteed right, unless such right may be waived. French v. State, 93 Wis. 325, 67 N. W. 706. The Statutes, at section 4680, provide for a change of venue in specified circumstances upon application of the accused. That ......
  • 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