Brown v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 17 November 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 250,89 Va. 379
• Parties: BROWN. v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

16 S.E. 250

89 Va. 379

BROWN.

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 17, 1892.

Arson— Evidence.

On the third trial for the arson of a warehouse two witnesses testified to certainfacts upon which they based their opinions that the fire was of incendiary origin. One detective testified to admissions made to him at or about the time of the fire, which he had not mentioned at either of the other trials, although he was a witness at both; another detective, put in the cell of the prisoner after the second trial, where he remained three days and four nights, ostensibly as a murderer, and admitting to the prisoner to be guilty, testified to admissions made to him while therein. Held, that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Lacy, J., dissenting.

Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county.

William Brown was convicted of arson, and appeals. Reversed.

Geo. E. Dennis, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Fauntleroy, J. This is a writ of error to a judgment of the circuit court of Franklin county affirming the judgment of the county court of said county rendered at the August term, 1891, of the said county court, on a verdict of guilty on an indictment for arson against the plaintiff in error, one William Brown, whereby he was sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead, on the 25th day of September, 1891. This is the third time that this case has come under review in this court. 11 S. E. Rep. 799, and 12 S. E. Rep. 472. On the writ of error awarded by this court to the second trial a new trial was awarded on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence in the record to establish the corpus delicti charged in the indictment, or to connect the accused with the perpetration of the offense, even admitting that the corpusdelictih&d been established with "clearness and certainty." Bish. Crim. Proc. §§ 1058, 1059. The case is reported in 87 Va. 215-221, 12 S. E. Rep. 472. On page 220, 87 Va., and page 473, 12 S. E. Rep., this court said: "This is all the evidence of the commonwealth to prove the corpus delicti, and it is insufficient, plainly and palpably, to establish, to the exclusion of reasonable doubt, that the fire was incendiary in its origin, and was not accidental. But, admitting that the evidence reasonably and sufficiently proves the corpus delicti, there is not sufficient evidence to connect the prisoner with the perpetration of the offense for which other agents have been tried, convicted, and hung. All the evidence in this record against the plaintiff in error is purely circumstantial, and the circumstances themselves are not fully and satisfactorily proved; and, even though they were fully proved, they do not, taken separately or all together, prove the guilt of the accused to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. At the most, they create only a suspicion against him, which is plainly insufficient to warrant the verdict of guilty found against him by the jury, and the sentence of death pronounced against him by the court. The record shows that a dozen others besides the plaintiff in error are suspected, and, of these, three have been condemned to be banged for the offense. See Anderson's Case, 83 Va. 329. 2 S. E. Rep. 281; Johnson's Case, 29 Grat. 796; Grayson's Case, 6 Grat. 712, and 7 Grat 613; Dean's Case, 32 Grat. 912; 7 Starkie, Ev. pp. 481-534."

There is nothing in the record of this third trial (now under review) to alter the case or make inapposite the foregoing commentary of this court in reviewing the second trial. The attorney general, in his printed brief of argument for the commonwealth, says: "Your honors must again review and weigh the evidence, and value it. You...