Laughlin v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 14 November 1896
• Citation: 37 S.W. 590
• Parties: LAUGHLIN v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

37 S.W. 590

LAUGHLIN v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 14, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Bracken county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Robert A. Laughlin was convicted of the crime of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

George Doniphan, for appellant.

W. S Taylor and M. R. Todd, for the Commonwealth.

PAYNTER J.

The accused, Robert H. Laughlin, was indicted, tried convicted and sentenced to be hanged for the murder of his wife, Emma Laughlin. Several reasons are urged as a ground for reversal. Emma Laughlin lost her life in February, 1896. The accused was indicted March 11, 1896, and the case came on for trial at the July term of the Bracken circuit court. The accused filed his own, together with other affidavits, in which there were statements that owing to charges pending against others for murder, and the perverted and aggravated statements purporting to give a true account of the facts upon which this and other indictments were found against the accused, the people of Bracken and adjoining counties were so biased at the time that they could not give him a fair trial. No motion was made for a change of venue. The facts which the affidavits purport to give would have been considered on a motion for a change of venue, but the failure to grant a continuance on such affidavits was not an error.

After the regular panel was exhausted, the judge of the court ordered the sheriff to summons jurors from bystanders. It is insisted that it was an error, because, after the regular panel was exhausted, the names of others to act as jurors should have been drawn from the drum or wheel. Section 2247 St. Ky. is as follows: "*** And the court after the petit juries for the term have been selected and impaneled, may, in any action, proceeding or prosecution after said panel has been exhausted, direct the sheriff to supply from bystanders the place of one or more who may be hereafter excused by the court for good cause or removed by the challenge of either party, or the judge may supply such jurors by drawing names from the drum or wheel as herein provided. ***" It seems to us that it is but necessary to quote the statute to answer the complaint of the accused that the jurors were not properly selected.

The record shows the killing, if at all, was at the house of the accused, which was said by the witnesses to be three or four miles west of Augusta. It is therefore claimed that the proof does not show the killing was in Bracken county. Before the jury could convict they were required by the instructions to believe from the evidence that the killing took place in Bracken county. The proof that the accused's house was three or four miles west of Augusta was sufficient to warrant the jury in reaching the conclusion that it occurred in Bracken county. Combs v. Com. (Ky.) 25 S.W. 592.

The instructions which the court gave the jury on the motion of the commonwealth's attorney fully and with more than ordinary precision stated the law of the case. Those given at the instance of the accused were unnecessary. After a careful examination of the instructions, we are unable to discover any error in the instructions which the court gave the jury prejudicial to the rights of the accused.

It is contended that there was a failure to prove the corpus delicti. The accused lived with his wife some three or four miles west of Augusta, Bracken county. They had no children but were frequently visited by his wife's niece, Mary Jones, who was about 12 years of age. She was staying with them on the night of February 14th. The proof in this record shows that the accused had borne a good character, and that he and his wife seemed to sustain the most pleasant relations to each other. Both seemed to be very fond of the niece. On February 15th, at 3 or 4 o'clock a. m. the accused went to the house of his sister, who lived a short distance from him. As he approached the house he was hallooing to her son that some one was trying to cut his throat. He was in his night clothes, had on his drawers and his under and day shirt, and was barefooted and bareheaded. His neck was bleeding. He claimed that a rough-looking man with long whiskers woke him up, trying to cut his throat with a razor, and as he ran out another man stuck a lighted torch in his face, whom he pushed down, and then ran to the house of his sister. His face was blackened and his hair singed. Shortly after his arrival his sister looked out and discovered a light over the hill, and informed the accused that his house or barn was on fire. It proved to be the house of the accused. This is substantially the testimony of his sister and her son. The accused testified at the inquest, and gave substantially the same account of the discovery of some one trying to cut his throat and his flight from the house as given by his sister. The house was destroyed by fire, and what is claimed to be the remains of the wife and niece were found in the cellar, burned to a crisp. The heads and legs were destroyed. In fact, nothing remained but badly-burned bodies. As one witness said, he could only tell the one from the other by their size. No one appears to have been staying at the house of the accused on the night referred to except the accused, his wife, and niece. He fled from the house but a few minutes before it was discovered on fire, leaving his wife and niece in it. Before the house was entirely consumed the bodies which were afterwards removed from the débris were discovered. They were removed in the condition described. There was testimony tending to prove that the places on the neck of the accused looked more like brier scratches than that they were made by an edged instrument. The jury had before it the improbable story which the accused told about waking up, with some one cutting at his throat, his conduct in running to his sister's house exclaiming that some one was cutting his throat, the strange story that he ran away from his house, leaving his wife and niece alone with two men bent on mischief, and other circumstances in the case. His was a one-story house, and it is wholly improbable that, if it caught fire, the wife and niece could not have escaped from it had they not been injured or killed before it occurred. There cannot be a reasonable doubt that the bodies found were those of Mrs. Laughlin and Mary Jones. The jury were warranted in reaching the conclusion that their death was produced by a criminal agency. It is not necessary that there should be direct and positive evidence of a corpus delicti. Presumptive evidence is sufficient for that purpose. In many cases it would be utterly impossible to bring guilty persons to justice if it required positive evidence of the corpus delicti. In many cases of homicide, the murderer commits the offense when there is no one to witness it. He seeks to destroy the evidence of his guilt. To hold that the murderer could escape by simply placing the body of his victim beyond recognition, or in removing that part of it which would have afforded evidence that death had been produced by violent or criminal means, would be...