Hawkins v. State
| Citation | 83 N.W. 198,60 Neb. 380 |
| Parties | HAWKINS v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1900 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
1. A prosecution for murder may be by information filed by the county attorney.
2. The venue of a homicide may be established by circumstantial evidence.
3. In a prosecution for murder, evidence of the finding of a headless body of the person alleged to have been murdered in an old well, which had been subsequently filled, situate in Frontier county, is sufficient, in the absence of other proof, to warrant the jury in concluding that the homicide was committed in that county.
4. The assignment in a petition in error of “errors of law occurring during the trial, duly excepted to,” is insufficient to present for review the rulings of the trial court admitting or excluding testimony.
5. An assignment in a petition in error should specifically indicate the ruling of which complaint is made.
6. Instructions should be assigned specifically in the petition in error.
Error to district court, Frontier county; Norris, Judge.
Andrew Hawkins was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.J. L. White and W. R. Starr, for plaintiff in error.
The Attorney General, for the State.
Andrew Hawkins was charged in an information filed in the district court of Frontier county with having murdered one Thomas Jenson. The accused was tried, a verdict of murder in the first degree was returned, and life imprisonment in the penitentiary was the punishment imposed. The record of the proceedings is here for review. Thomas Jenson, at the time of his death, was a widower, about 70 years old, and at various times resided at Indianola, in Red Willow county. He was possessed of considerable means, and loaned his money on real-estate mortgages in Kansas and Nebraska. He would frequently leave Indianola, and not return for months. In the fall of 1897 he returned to Indianola from an extended absence, and about the middle of December of that year he was seen alive in that village, when he disappeared. His relatives instituted a search for him in the summer of 1898, and, currency having been given to the rumor that perhaps Jenson had been foully dealt with, a general search for his remains was instituted by the people of Frontier county, which resulted in the finding of the headless body of Jenson on August 7, 1898, in the bottom of a deep well in a canyon situate on lands adjoining the accused in Frontier county, and about four miles from the Red Willow county line. Suspicion at once was directed towards Hawkins. A coroner's inquest was held, at the close of which a warrant was issued against Hawkins, upon which he was arrested for the crime of murder. The county attorney filed an information in the district court of Frontier county, and conviction followed. It is urged that the court below had no jurisdiction to try the case or sentence the accused, for two reasons: First, there was no presentment or indictment by a grand jury, but that Hawkins was tried and convicted upon an information filed by the county attorney; and, second, that the offense was not committed in Frontier county.
The first contention is not new. The question has been considered and decided by this court in Miller v. State, 29 Neb. 437, 45 N. W. 451;Bolln v. State, 51 Neb. 581, 71 N. W. 444, where it is ruled that prosecutions for felonies may be had on informations filed by the county attorney.
The other objection lacks merit. It is true, no witness testified that Jenson was murdered in Frontier county, the conviction being based largely upon circumstantial evidence. It is uncontradicted that Jenson's body, with the head severed, was found in an old well in Frontier county, several miles from the county line, and the well filled up, conclusively showing that the body was thrown in the well by some one. This evidence, unexplained, was sufficient to justify the jury in concluding that the homicide was committed in Frontier county. Com. v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1. The verdict in a criminal case may be established by circumstantial evidence, like any other fact. State v. West, 69 Mo. 401;Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 51 N. W. 307. It is urged that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction in this case. That the lifeless body found in the well was that of Thomas Jenson, and that he was murdered by some one, was not questioned by defendant, and the corpus delicti is clearly established by the evidence. Frank Green, S. R. Smith, and Dr. Chase, the coroner, testified to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial