Keith v. The State
| Citation | 61 N.E. 716,157 Ind. 376 |
| Decision Date | 01 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 19,655 |
| Parties | Keith v. The State |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From Gibson Circuit Court; O. M. Welborn, Judge.
Joseph D. Keith was convicted of murder, and appeals.
Affirmed.
F. B Posey, D. Q. Chappell and C. W. Armstrong, for appellant.
W. L Taylor, Attorney-General, C. C. Hadley, Merrill Moores and T W. Lindsey, for State.
Appellant is under sentence of death for murder. The only assignment presented in briefs and oral argument is that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict is questioned. The State produced witnesses whose testimony went to establish these facts and circumstances: In the autumn of 1899, appellant, a farmer in Warrick county about forty years old, married, living with his wife and children, began a liaison with the deceased, Nora Kifer, daughter of a neighboring farmer, about eighteen years old, unmarried. In December they lived together two or three days at a hotel in Evansville, in Vanderburgh county, some twenty miles from appellant's home. From this time until April following, deceased stayed mainly in Evansville, sometimes in a brothel. During this period appellant paid out considerable money to her and on her account. Deceased was not discreet, and her intimacy with appellant became current gossip in the home neighborhood. It reached the ears of appellant's wife and caused trouble. Appellant also became fearful of a threatened action by deceased for her seduction. On Saturday evening, March 31st, deceased returned home from Evansville. On Monday appellant sought to see her, but failed. On Tuesday appellant sent her a note by his son Jesse, a lad in his teens. She destroyed the note, but, from the testimony of Jesse who helped deceased decipher it and from subsequent declarations of appellant, it read: "Lora, meet me at the bridge at dark." Deceased instructed the lad to tell his father "All right." In the late afternoon she donned her best clothes, rather gaudy and easily described, and started for the bridge. (This bridge crosses an old canal in a valley where darkness falls rapidly after the sun descends behind the adjacent hills.) She was seen to reach and pace back and forth upon the bridge at dusk. She did not leave either east or west along the road. South of the bridge is a wood. Adjoining this is a field in which, near the fence, lies an abandoned well, full of water to within a few feet of the surface, fenced off from the field with rails, overgrown with briars and bushes. That night of Tuesday, April 3rd, was the last time that Nora Kifer was seen alive. About eleven o'clock that night neighbor Hedges saw appellant approaching his home along the road leading from the direction of the bridge and old well. Upon seeing Hedges appellant stepped from the middle of the road over to the fence. This was of pickets about four feet high. Appellant failed to climb over, but skirted along the fence, with averted gaze, until he had passed Hedges. Hedges accosted appellant, but he neither replied nor looked up. April 9th the mother of deceased received a letter, postmarked at Evansville on April 8th, reading: Appellant was accustomed to call deceased "Lora". The writing of the letter and envelope was identified as appellant's. From this time until May 22nd appellant spoke to nearly every one he met about the Kifers' receiving letters from their daughter, that she was in a sporting-house either at Evansville or Paducah or St. Louis, and that if she told lies on people around Evansville like she had on him she would be found in the creek with a stone around her neck. Finally the father of deceased said to appellant that Nora had not been heard from; that a letter, purporting to be from her, had been received, but that it was in a man's handwriting; that plenty of men would swear whose writing it was; and that he proposed to search for his daughter and find her if alive. On the night of May 22nd William Blackman was returning from Evansville. About five miles from the canal bridge, about an hour after dark, he met a covered buggy, top up, side curtains on, back curtain down, drawn by a gray horse, proceeding toward Evansville. The horse was "just flying", swerved wide in passing Blackman, and never slackened speed so far as he could hear it. About 10 o'clock that night appellant arrived at a livery barn in Evansville. He drove a gray mare, harnessed to a top buggy. At 6 o'clock the next morning he had breakfast and shortly afterwards left Evansville. That morning the body of a woman was found in Pigeon creek, about two miles from Evansville, at the side of a bridge on the road leading towards the canal bridge and appellant's home. The body was near the middle of the creek in about four feet of water. The head and upper part of the body were submerged. The legs and lower part of the abdomen were out of the water. Around the neck was a rope, to which was attached a heavy stone. The stream was sluggish. The skull was found to be mashed in, particularly about the temples. The body appeared to have been dead from six to eight weeks and to have been submerged in water during that time. The hair and nails had all slipped off. The clothing on the body was that worn by Nora Kifer when she left home on April 3rd. (The slippers and some other articles were not on the body.) A birthmark and other physical characteristics were those of Nora Kifer. The father and others identified the deceased as Nora Kifer. That day appellant painted his buggy and washed the floor carpet thereof. Blood crystals were found in the carpet. An autopsy disclosed that the blood was yet fluid in the body. On the 25th appellant was arrested at his home in Warrick county and taken to Evansville. The officers permitted him to ride separately with his son Jesse. He told Jesse that if he was asked about the note he should say that he did not take any note. At the jail he was searched and a pair of cast iron knuckles were found on him. After giving forth many conflicting oral declarations, he made and signed a written statement to the effect that deceased had caused him so much trouble that he wanted to get her out of the way; that he sent the note making the appointment at the bridge to enable a peddler whom he had employed for that purpose to take her to Chicago; that the peddler returned and said he had taken her to Chicago; that he wrote the letter of April 8th to quiet her parents. The officers arrested a peddler answering the description given by appellant. When the peddler was brought into appellant's presence, he said "That is the man." On the peddler's fearfully beseeching him not to accuse an innocent man of the crime, appellant laughed and said . Appellant then told the officers that he had employed a man named Asbury to take deceased away. The officers replied that it was futile to try to deceive them further, that they had had a talk with his son Jesse, and that he was the man. Whereupon appellant replied In the morning, after consulting counsel, he refused to talk further. An aged aunt visited him in jail, and said: "If you are guilty, Joe, own it like a man and get the mercy of the court, but if you are not guilty, say so like a man." He replied: "She broke my peace at home and was getting away with all my money, and something had to be done." While in jail appellant attempted to arrange with fellow prisoners, and with other persons by letter, for proof of an alibi for himself and of the life and whereabouts of Nora Kifer after April 3rd. In the latter part of June some men were cutting wheat in the field between the old well and the highway leading to appellant's home. Two slippers were found, one about twenty five yards and the other about seventy-five yards from the old well, now rain soaked and muddy, which were identified as those worn by Nora Kifer on the evening of April 3rd. There were blood crystals on the rails about the well. After the water was bailed out, at the bottom were discovered a hammer, a pair of grab-hooks, which had been made by appellant and used about his farm, and human hair of the color, length and quantity Nora Kifer had when last seen alive. Against this proof on the part of the State, appellant introduced evidence that he was at home the entire evening and night of April 3rd. As a witness in his own behalf he denied practically all of the admissions and circumstances adduced by the State. Much of the State's evidence tending to establish the most incriminating circumstances was strongly controverted. But counsel are in error in assuming that, because this is a capital case, a court of review will undertake to weigh the evidence. No more in this than in any other case does the transcript bring up the voice, the appearance, the demeanor of the witnesses, including appellant; and these are matters that may have been controlling with the jury and trial court in determining the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. It was for the jury to decide what facts and circumstances were proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and for them too to draw the inferences deducible therefrom; and if the inference of guilt was fairly to be drawn from the circumstances of which there was evidence, the appellate tribunal should accept the finding of the jury,...
To continue reading
Request your trial