Almond v. People
| Decision Date | 06 October 1913 |
| Citation | 135 P. 783,55 Colo. 425 |
| Parties | ALMOND v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, Lincoln County; J. W. Sheafor, Judge.
Thomas Almond was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
J. E Barngrover, of Hugo, and B. C. Hilliard, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin Griffith and Fred Farrar, Attys. Gen and Theodore M. Stuart, Jr., and Frank C. West, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the People.
1. Defendant, Thomas Almond, was convicted of murder of the first degree for killing one V. H. Barger July 13, 1911, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Deceased married defendant's sister, and the homicide grew out of trouble between the two families. They lived on adjoining homesteads their dwellings being not over 100 yards apart, with no fence between. When Barger located his homestead, he thought it took in a well and sheep cabin on the public domain, but a survey thereafter disclosed these were over the line on the adjoining tract. He then got his wife's mother, Mrs Almond, to come to Colorado and file on this quarter in order that he might have the use of the well. Soon after this, at her invitation, her son, the defendant, with his family came to reside with her, which resulted in ill feeling and frequent quarrels between the men. The morning of the homicide, while deceased's wife and 14 year old daughter were working in their garden, he started for the well to water some stock, carrying a large bucket on each arm. His 12 year old son accompanied him, driving a team hitched to a cultivator. In going to the well, they passed through the mother's yard and close by the corner of the house, in which defendant lived. Up to this point there is no conflict in the testimony; but the evidence is conflicting as to what followed. The boy testified that as they passed the corner of the house, along the road to the well, he heard defendant say to his father, 'God damn you, don't drive through my yard,' which was immediately followed by a shot that frightened the horses and caused them to run away with him. Relative to this part of the transaction the defendant said that, as Barger and his son were coming through the dooryard, he requested them not to drive through there because, as he said, he was afraid they would run over his baby; that Barger, with an oath, immediately drew a butcher knife from under the bib of his overalls and with a vile epithet started towards him and threatened to kill the whole family; that he then stepped back in the door and, getting his rifle, came outside and told deceased to stop, which he did not do, but kept approaching him with the knife raised and repeated the threat, whereupon he fired one shot at deceased's head. There is no evidence as to where this shot took effect, if at all; but, conceding defendant's account of the attack to be true, it evidently caused Barger to desist, for he immediately turned and ran, pursued by defendant, who continued shooting at him from the rear. When he had gone about 150 yards, he fell to the ground, and his wife and daughter, whose attention had been attracted by the shooting, testified that after he fell they saw defendant run up and shoot him in the face as he lay helpless on the ground. This was the last shot, and Barger died immediately thereafter. While deceased was retreating, defendant fired many shots at him, eight or ten of which took effect, and all but two entering his body from the rear. Of the two shots that struck him in front, one cut his chin, while the other entered at the inner corner of the eye, inflicting a wound that would cause immediate death. Three of the shots entered deceased's back, passed through his body, and would have produced death, though perhaps not immediately. Another shot broke his leg, causing him to fall, after which the defendant fired the last shot. When the officers arrived on the scene, they found a butcher knife in the right hand of deceased, which Mrs. Barger and the daughter testified had been loaned by them to defendant's family shortly before and had not been returned up to the time of the homicide. Although the body of deceased, his clothing and the buckets he carried, were covered with blood, none was found on the knife in his hand.
2. It cannot be determined whether the jury believed the story of the boy or the defendant as to what occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Espy v. State
... ... examination. State v. Lindeman (N. D.) 254 N.W. 276; ... State v. Burke (Wash.) 215 P. 31; People v ... Stokes (Calif.) 37 P. 207; People v. Conkling ... (Cal.) 44 P. 314. Jurors are not permitted to ... investigate a case outside the ... v. State, 60 Ark. 76, 29 S.W. 894, 46 Am. St. Rep. 164, ... 31 L.R.A. 465; Maddox v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 173 ... S.W. 1026; Almond v. People, 55 Colo. 425, 135 P ... 783; People v. Brown, 62 Cal.App. 96, 216 P. 411 ... In the ... closing argument, counsel for the ... ...
-
State v. Faust
...to prevent these questions, and if necessary I will make an example of you in preserving the dignity of this court.' Almond v. People, 1913, 55 Colo. 425, 135 P. 783, 784. The rules generally applied in determining whether the remarks of the trial judge to counsel are prejudicial are: (1) t......
-
People v. Sepeda, 27880
...A defendant may not rely on the Boykin rule when he is no longer under attack, but has himself become the assailant. Almond v. People, 55 Colo. 425, 135 P. 783; similarly, People v. Favors, Colo., 556 P.2d 72. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the fight ended no later than when def......
-
State v. Gleason
... ... Royce testified at the Humphries trial, on behalf of the ... defendant, that she, together with Pete Humphries and certain ... other young people including her brother Victor, on the 21st ... of July, 1932, went from Salt Lake City to Fish Lake in ... Sevier county and stayed at a certain ... recess. We think the remarks were justified under the ... circumstances and the judge did not transgress against the ... rule. Almond v. People , 55 Colo. 425, 135 ... P. 783. That counsel for defendant believed the court had ... acted fairly is indicated by his remark quoted ... ...