Acker v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | Criminal 557 |
| Parties | WILLIAM E. ACKER, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL for a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yavapai. John J. Sweeney, Judge. Affirmed.
Mr John A. Ellis and Mr. T. J. Bryne, for Appellant.
Mr John W. Murphy, Attorney General, Mr. A. R. Lynch, Mr. Earl Anderson and Mr. E. W. McFarland, Assistant Attorneys General, for the State.
Acker was charged jointly with one other, and tried separately and convicted of murder in the first degree, accomplished upon one Iver Enge. Enge was the owner of an automobile in which with Acker as a passenger he drove from Phoenix to Prescott where Enge introduced him to one Berge as a former acquaintance. Acker and Berge talked together of the possibility of killing Enge and taking his automobile, and a day or two later persuaded Enge to drive them into the county in order that they might find a way to kill him. On the way out, Enge at the suggestion of Acker surrendered the driving of the car to him. When they had reached a point seven or eight miles out from Prescott, Acker stopped the car, and suggested that they all alight. After some conversation among the three, Berge stepped behind Enge, and struck him with a blackjack, knocking him down. As he fell he appealed to Acker to help him. Berge continued to beat Enge until the latter was supposed to be dead. Acker and Berge then dragged the body out to one side of the road over a declivity. After they had returned to the automobile, Enge was seen to stir, and attempt to rise on his hands and knees. Acker then took the bludgeon and returned to Enge, and after beating him further, again returned to the automobile. As they watched Enge, he was seen to move again, and Acker returned a second time, and with a knife stabbed Enge twice. Acker and Berge then drove away in Enge's machine, in which was a roll of bedding belonging to Enge, Acker doing the driving.
They drove to Phoenix, and rented a shack, and made some repairs upon the stolen automobile. In the course of a day or two they learned through a newspaper that Enge had been found alive. Thereupon they fled with the stolen car, leaving Enge's bedding and the blackjack in the shack they had occupied. After proceeding as far as Maricopa, they were unable to drive the car further, and abandoned it there on the desert, Acker going to Los Angeles, where he was arrested not long afterwards going under the name of Doyle, and having in his possession Enge's bank deposit book showing a substantial deposit to the credit of Enge.
Acker made at various times statements purported to describe the killing of Enge by Berge and himself, in some of which Berge was represented as being the leading and most active factor. Prior to his arrest, he told an acquaintance substantially the same account of the killing of Enge, except by that account he admitted a more active part in the actual slaying, including beating Enge with the blackjack and stabbing him with a knife; otherwise the two accounts did not substantially differ.
Enge was discovered in an unconscious condition by a woodchopper, and the fact reported to the sheriff's office at Prescott. Some days later Enge partially recovered consciousness, and was able even to move about with his nurse, but never recovered fully his mental faculties, nor the power of speech, but remained in a dazed condition until the end. His death, which occurred about a month later, was found to be due to the blows received upon his head.
Acker left a plain trail behind him, and his guilt was established both by circumstantial evidence, and by his own statements. None of this evidence was disputed.
The defense offered no evidence excepting the testimony of the nurse, who cared for Enge. His evidence did not tend to contradict any of the testimony introduced by the state, and it is impossible to discover for what purpose it was offered. It related merely to the state of Enge's health during the time he was under the witness' care.
Appellant assigns a number of error which he says were committed in the trial of this cause. Evidence of the knife wound found on the body of Enge was objected to, because death was alleged in the information to have been produced by blows upon the head. The evidence of the knife wounds appeared in the testimony of the condition in which Enge was found. The county attorney very properly gave to the jury all the evidence which seemed to throw any light upon the means by which Enge came to his end, and the circumstances and conditions in which he was found. Had he not done so, the defense would undoubtedly have offered the same evidence, and used it as a means of throwing doubt upon the cause of Enge's death, and would very likely have charged the county attorney with bad faith in withholding the evidence. The introduction of this testimony by the state itself undoubtedly took from the defense some force which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. State
... ... for the objection, and, if it is not objectionable on the ... ground stated, it is not error for the court to admit it, ... even though there might be some other proper reason for its ... rejection not raised by the objection as made. Acker ... v. State, 26 Ariz. 372, 226 P. 199; Shepard ... v. State, 28 Ariz. 391, 237 P. 182. But, even ... assuming that the objection was sufficient to raise the ... question of whether the evidence was inadmissible on the ... ground that it tended to show other offenses, we think that ... ...
-
Dodd v. Boies
...and statute make it clear that in order to be guilty as a principal, one must possess criminal intent. A.R.S. § 13-131; Acker v. State, 26 Ariz. 372, 379, 226 P. 199, 201. The crux of the problem depends upon what is meant by the phrase 'probable cause'. It has been held in order for a magi......
-
Elfbrandt v. Russell, 10
...advised and encouraged its commission. In a crime where a specific intent is an element there can be no innocent aiding. Acker v. State, 26 Ariz. 372, 226 P. 199. Since both the act and the aiding referred to in the statute must be in attempts with the specific intent to overthrow the gover......
-
State v. Roberts, 1125
...the robbery. If that were all, the proof might indeed be insufficient, as consistent with innocence as with guilt. Cf. Acker v. State, 26 Ariz. 372, 379, 226 P. 199, 201. But that is not The State's evidence consisted in the main of the testimony of D. K. Lester, the victim, and Harry Thomp......