Jones v. Com.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 5149,5149
• Citation: 117 S.E.2d 67,202 Va. 236
• Parties: EDGIE R. JONES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 67

117 S.E.2d 67

202 Va. 236

EDGIE R. JONES v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 5149.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

November 28, 1960.

William King Mapp (Mapp and Mapp, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.

Reno S. Harp, III, Assistant Attorney General (A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), for the Commonwealth.

WHITTLE, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is before us upon a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Accomack County wherein Edgie R. Jones was sentenced to serve five years in the penitentiary in conformity with the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the slaying of his wife, Martha Jones.

It is disclosed that on the morning of May 18, 1959, Jones purchased a six shot .22-caliber pistol. On the evening of that day David Bennett, a long-time friend of Jones', visited the latter's store. Jones invited Bennett, whose wife was visiting in Norfolk at the time, to spend the night with him. Bennett accepted the invitation and went home with Jones and his wife, where he ate supper.

After supper they watched television until about 9:00 p.m. when they retired for the night. Jones and his wife went to their bedroom and Bennett went to sleep on the sofa in the living room. Later in the night Bennett was awakened by the screams of Mrs. Jones at which time he heard the firing of a pistol. He 'jumped up', saw Jones holding his wife by her arm with his left hand and holding the pistol in his right hand. Mrs. Jones broke away from her husband and staggered out the door, at which time Jones pointed the pistol at Bennett and threatened to shoot him. Bennett ran out of the house and upon returning later to get his clothes he saw Jones put the pistol to his head and pull the trigger.

Jones testified that it was his intention to commit suicide because of his poor financial condition; that he had gone into the darkened kitchen where he took the pistol from a drawer; that at this point his wife came into the room, grabbed his hand and a bullet was fired into a shelf. He testified that he did not remember shooting his wife.

Mrs. Jones was taken to a local hospital where it was discovered she had four bullet wounds in her body. Defendant was taken to a Norfolk hospital where he was treated for a bullet wound in his temple which subsequently resulted in the loss of an eye. Mrs. Jones died on June 27, 1959.

The record discloses that Jones and his wife were married on April 23, 1913, and from that date until the time of the shooting they lived together happily and apparently were a devoted couple.

The question raised by the first assignment of error is: Did the Commonwealth prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. The basis for the assignment is that Mrs. Jones was shot on May 18, 1959; that she did not die until June 27, 1959, and that the cause of her death was not traceable to the wounds inflicted by the bullets. The defendant thus contends that this component part of the corpus delicti was not established and that his motion to strike the evidence should have been sustained. There is no merit in this contention. Dr. Henderson, a witness on behalf of the Commonwealth, testified:

'Q. What was her [Martha Jones'] cause of death?

'A. The cause of her death was generalized peritonitis.

'Q. What did it come from?

'A. Well, peritonitis is an infection of the peritoneum or abdominal cavity. In this case, it was caused by bullet wounds which caused several perforations of the intestinal tract.

* * *

* * *

'Q. What was the cause of the death that led up to the peritonitis?

'A. Well, certainly the bullet wounds are the things that started the whole train of events.'

Although Dr. Henderson was vigorously cross-examined his evidence was in no way changed.

While there was other evidence tending to show that Mrs. Jones died as a result of the bullet wounds inflicted, the testimony of Dr. Henderson was sufficient to carry this question to the jury. The evidence is overwhelming that the death of Mrs. Jones was caused by generalized peritonitis resulting from the bullet wounds inflicted by the defendant, and this issue was properly resolved by the jury's verdict. Harrison v. Commonwealth, 183 Va. 394, 401, 32 S. E. 2d 136, 140; Hevener v. Commonwealth,i 189 Va. 802, 810, 54 S. E. 2d 893, 897.

The second assignment of error charges that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence and was without evidence to support it. In this connection the defendant states in his brief, "Upon the indictment for murder your petitioner pleaded 'not guilty', and the ground of his defense from the outset was insanity at the time the alleged shooting took place."

The contention of the defendant relates to evidence introduced on his behalf which had a tendency to show that he was insane before and at the time of the shooting. On the other hand, witnesses for the Commonwealth testified that they had observed nothing abnormal about the defendant prior to the shooting; that he had attended to his business affairs as usual, and had talked and acted in a rational manner. The defendant testified that his financial condition had disturbed him but he admitted that on the day of the shooting he 'felt fine.'

The family physician had, on March 19, 1959, or shortly thereafter, examined the defendant and recommended that he secure some psychiatric help, which he attempted to do. The doctor said he made this recommendation not because Jones seemed to be acting in an unusual manner but because he appeared to be 'somewhat nervous.'

Dr. Fred G. Woodson, a psychiatrist called on behalf of the defendant, testified that in his opinion the defendant on the day of the shooting (1) did not have the capacity to judge right from wrong, and (2) did not have control over his impulses. Dr. Woodson based his opinion on an examination of the defendant made some five days after the crime was committed. The defendant takes the position that this evidence was sufficient to show that he was insane at the time of the shooting and consequently the court should have set aside the verdict.

While there was strong evidence to indicate that Jones' mental condition was impaired, there was other evidence showing that it was not. This conflict in the evidence presented a jury question. It is well settled law in this Commonwealth that under the circumstances related it was for the jury to determine whether or not the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the crime. It is no sufficient for the defendant to raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, he must go a step further and prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he was insane at the time of the commission of the criminal act. Wessells v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 664, 673, 180 S. E. 419; Holober v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 826, 837, 62 S. E. 2d 816, 821.

Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the jury. Boswell v. The Commonwealth, 20 Gratt. (61 Va.) 860, 868; Maxwell v. Commonwealth, 165 Va. 860, 865, 183 S. E. 452; Christian v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 311, 117 S. E. 2d 72.

The third assignment of error deals with the trial court giving, over the objection of the defendant, Instruction No. 2, which reads:

'That...