King v. People

• Decision Date: 20 January 1930
• Docket Number: 12426.
• Citation: King v. People, 87 Colo. 11, 285 P. 157 (Colo. 1930)
• Parties: KING v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

285 P. 157

87 Colo. 11

KING v. PEOPLE.

No. 12426.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

January 20, 1930

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver County; Charles C. Sackmann, Judge.

Farice King was convicted of murder in the first degree, and she brings error.

Affirmed.

Lewis deR.Mowry and Robert D. Charlton, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Robert E. Winbourn, Atty. Gen., and E. J. Plunkett, Asst. Atty Gen., for the People.

MOORE J.

Farice King was tried in the district court of the city and county of Denver, found guilty of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the State Penitentiary for life.She is here seeking a new trial.

The information charged that on November 28, 1928, the defendantFarice King, did 'unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully deliberately, and of her premeditated malice aforethought, kill and murder one Robert K. Evans.'The defendant entered a plea of 'not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense.'Thereafter defendant filed a motion requesting that the court enter an order directing the district attorney to return to her, or to permit her to inspect, certain letters written by the deceased to the defendant which were taken from the defendant's possession at the direction of the district attorney after the commission of the offense charged in the information.The affidavit in support of this motion charged that the numerous letters and documents thus held by the district attorney should be returned to her in order to permit her to prepare her defense of insanity.The answer of the district attorney admits that he had in his possession many letters presumably written by the deceased to the defendant, but that all bear date prior to the year 1922; that said letters are entirely too remote to have any effect upon her mental condition at the time of the homicide and are wholly irrelevant, immaterial, and inadmissible.This motion was denied.Thereupon, pursuant to defendant's notice and request, the court ordered the taking of the depositions of Earl Wettengel, district attorney and Harry Lane, a city detective, and the production in court pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum, issued at the request of defendant, said letters and two diaries belonging to the defendant.The district attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum, which, in substance, charges that the sole purpose of taking the deposition of the two witnesses, Wettengel and Lane, was to accomplish indirectly and inspection of said documents which the court had theretofore refused.The depositions of Wettengel and Lane were taken.These disclose that Lane had taken from the home of Mrs. Hanson, sister of defendant, where defendant resided, at 784 Garfield street, Denver, a bundle containing from 150 to 250 letters written by the deceased to the defendant, a few post cards and two small diaries.Defendant demanded that these documents be produced in court, identified, and made a part of these depositions.The court refused to permit this procedure and granted the motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum on the ground that the defendant sought by this method to circumvent the order of the court theretofore entered denying to defendant an inspection of said documents.Thereafter, the case was set for trial on February 25, 1929, and tried before a jury and Judge Charles C. Sackmann.On March 3, 1929, the jury returned its verdict in open court before Judge Frank McDonough, Sr., who received the same at the telephone request of Judge Charles C. Sackmann, who at the time the verdict was returned was confined to his bed, under the orders of his physician.

The evidence discloses that the defendant came to Colorado in 1908; was married in 1912; her husband later deserted her; a child was born of this marriage, which later died, and thereafter the defendant completed, successfully, a course at the Denver General Hospital as a trained nurse, and thereafter, up until the time of the homicide, followed her profession rather regularly and held numerous responsible positions in that capacity.In 1917, defendant, being then of the age of 27 years, met Robert K. Evans, who was then a married man, which fact became known to the defendant during the ensuing year.In 1918 Mr. Evans went into the naval service of the United States and was stationed at San Diego for training.There was some talk between defendant and Evans with regard to his getting a divorce from his then wife and marrying the defendant.Just before going to San Diego defendant and Evans were intimate, she at that time knowing that he had a wife from whom he was not divorced.Later, in the latter part of 1918, defendant followed Evans to San Diego and there had brought to her attention numerous instances of his deception.Considerable correspondence was carried on between defendant and Evans up until some time in the year 1922.Evans later returned to Denver, and in 1923defendant had information that he was going with some one else.Defendant claims that prior to this time Evans had promised that at some time he would marry her.However, in April, 1924, Evans married another woman, with whom he was living at the time of his decease.There was only an intermittent contact between defendant and Robert K. Evans from 1918 down to the time of the homicide in 1928, and practically all letter writing ceased between the two in 1922.In 1927the defendant became engaged to a man in Texas, and was so engaged at the time of the homicide.In November, 1928, Robert K. Evans, being then on the police force, was shot in making an arrest, taken to the Denver General Hospital and placed under the care of a nurse there.By chance Miss King was also in the same hospital at that time engaged in the care of another patient in her capacity as a trained nurse.She knew that Evans was married and living with his wife, Lillian, at that time, but sought out Evans in his room at the hospital and had considerable conversation with him and obtained permission to act as his nurse.She claims that there was considerable talk of love and affection between herself and Evans while he was so confined in the hospital; also that some improper suggestion was made to her by Evans as to being intimate with her in the hospital, which was rejected.In one place in her statement to Dr. Ebaugh, we find this language; 'I tried to talk of love, and he did not seem to want to be affectionate.I asked him if he would not see me some time when he left.He said he did not know, would not talk much and would not encourage me.'In spite of all these episodes having taken place and the facts that had come to the attention of the defendant, she claimed to still love the said Evans most intensely.Defendant had planned to be married to a man in Texas in December, 1928.After a day or two at the hospital, the defendant stated: 'I tried to say something about the future, and he said.'Don't bring up anything else.'I said, 'Life has been so empty and you will soon be going away.'He said, 'Well, you are a good nurse, Farice.'I said, 'I want something more than being a good nurse; I want you and I want what you promised me and your love; I want you so much; you are always building up my hopes, and they are crushed.'He would not give me much satisfaction about the future plans, so I thought I would tell him that I was going to be married to Mr. Daniels in Texas.* * * I wanted to tell him mainly to see what effect it would have on him.'The next day the defendant purchased the gun with which the shooting was done, from Mr. Berger, a secondhand man at 1715 Larimer street, giving a false name and address, May Wilson, 1114 Acoma street.Several hours previous to the homicide, defendant conversed with deceased and said: 'I told him I could not live without him and that I would have to bring an end to my life.* * * I tried to kiss him and he pushed me away.It was 12 o'clock.'This was just a few hours before the shooting occurred.Defendant at that time had the gun, which she purchased the day before, in her pocketbook.A few hours later shots were heard, and, upon entering the ward, the attendants found Robert K. Evans lying in his bed in a position which indicated that he had been asleep with a bullet wound through his brain and another through his heart, either of which would have caused death.The defendant was found lying on a cot next to his with a self-inflicted bullet wound in her left breast.

Two notes written by the defendant were found in the room, one addressed to the deceased as follows:

'Dearest Bob.You belong to me, and I cannot go on any longer,--living without you.And you shall not go on.I have waited over 5 years for this chance, and it came.

'I hope no one else will ever know the real cause for this----

'Only you and I

'Farice.'

The other:

'11-28-282 A. M.

'Please bury me at the same time and near him.

'I'm sorry for the grief and sorrow this brings to all of you.

'Farice.'

We shall consider the assignment of errors as presented in defendant's brief.

1.It is claimed that a new trial should be granted, because the evidence raises a reasonable doubt as to defendant's sanity at the time of the alleged commission of the offense.

The record in this case is voluminous, consisting of 3 volumes 725 pages, and 1904 folios.The proceedings at the trial cover 530 pages and 1512 folios thereof.Outside of the testimony of witnesses disclosing the facts of the homicide, the entire time of the trial, 5 days, was consumed by the taking of testimony of witnesses, lay and expert, as to the mental condition of the defendant prior to and at the time of the commission of the crime charged.In behalf of defendant, 30...