Carver v. United States
| Citation | 160 U.S. 553,16 S.Ct. 388,40 L.Ed. 532 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | No. 721,721 |
| Parties | CARVER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Frank Carver was convicted of the murder of Anna Maledon in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Arkansas, and sentenced to be hanged, whereupon he sued out this writ of error.
The fatal wound was inflicted by the discharge of a pistol on the night of March 25, 1895, at Muscogee, Creek Nation, in the Indian country, but the death occurred at Ft. Smith, Ark., May 19, 1895.
In addition to other evidence, there was testimony tending to show that Carver and the deceased were attached to each other; that he was very drunk on the night of the homicide; and that he was in the habit of carrying a pistol, which he was flourishing at that time. A declaration in writing in respect of the circumstances attendant upon the commission of the act, made by the deceased March 27, 1895, was admitted in evidence against objection as made under a sense of impending death.
The testimony of the clerk of the court, Wheeler, to the effect that the deceased, after she was brought to Ft. Smith, which was April 14, 1895, said that her former statement was true, was admitted, subject to an exception because no proper foundation was laid for its admission.
Exceptions were also taken to certain parts of the charge.
Wm. M. Cravens, for plaintiff in error.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Dickinson, for defendant in error.
Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
While in the admission of the declarations of the victim as to the facts of a homicide the utmost caution must be exercised to the end that it be satisfactorily established that they were made under the impression of almost immediate dissolution, we think that the evidence of the state of mind of Anna Maledon in that particular, when the declaration of March 27, 1895, was made, and which we need not recapitulate, was sufficient to justify the circuit court in admitting it. Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 151, 13 Sup. Ct. 50. But the testimony of Wheeler stands on different ground, and we are of opinion should not have been admitted.
In answer to leading questions, the witness said that he saw Anna Maledon after she was brought to Ft. Smith; that he asked her whether the declaration of March 27, 1895, was true; and that she replied 'it was, in every particular.'
The deceased received the fatal wound March 25th, and her statement of March 27, 1895, was admitted as a dying declaration. The interview with Wheeler was on or after April 14, 1895, and whether she then spoke under the admonition of her approaching...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanford., 4476.
...subsequent inadequate state of mind would not be admissible.” To support the last statement, Mr. Wigmore cites Carver v. United States, 160 U. S. 553, 16 S.Ct. 388, 40 L.Ed. 532, and State v. Sadler, 51 La. Ann. 1397, 26 So. 390, 401. State v. Sadler relies on Carver v. United States. The L......
-
Shepard v. United States, 564.
...certain and almost immediate dissolution. Mattox v. United States, 146 U. S. 140, 13 S. Ct. 50, 36 L. Ed. 917; Carver v. United States, 160 U. S. 553, 16 S. Ct. 388, 40 L. Ed. 532; Carver v. United States, 164 U. S. 694, 17 S. Ct. 228, 41 L. Ed. 602. Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) §§ The Gove......
-
State v. Elias
...in the hush of its impending presence. Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 151, 13 S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917; Carver v. United States, 160 U.S. 553, 16 S.Ct. 388, 40 L.Ed. 532; Id., 164 U.S. 694, 17 S.Ct. 228, 41 L.Ed. 602; Rex v. Perry, [1909] 2 K.B. 697; People v. Sarzano, 212 N.Y. 231, 2......
-
U.S. v. O'Neil
...that Mr. Bienicki's testimony regarding it should not have been admitted into evidence. Mr. O'Neil relies upon Carver v. United States, 160 U.S. 553, 555, 16 S.Ct. 388 (1896), which stated that "[r]ebutting evidence is evidence in denial of some affirmative case or fact which defendant has ......