Littlejohn v. State

Citation219 A.2d 155,59 Del. 291
Parties, 59 Del. 291 Edward LITTLEJOHN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Delaware, Appellee.
Decision Date12 April 1966
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Delaware

Appeal from the Superior Court in and for Sussex County.

Michael F. Tucker, Asst. Public Defender, Wilmington, for appellant.

Grover C. Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dover, for the State.

WOLCOTT, C.J., and CAREY and HERRMANN, JJ., sitting.

WOLCOTT, Chief Justice:

The appellant, Edward Littlejohn, was convicted of the manslaughter of Mamie Bryant. He appeals, attacking the sufficiency of the State's evidence and the refusal to suppress from evidence statements made by the deceased to neighbors shortly after the events which the State maintains caused her death.

Prior to September 22, 1963, the day on which these events took place, Littlejohn had lived with Mamie Bryant near Lincoln, Delaware. Their near neighbors were Lillian and Joseph Robinson. On the day in question, Littlejohn and Mamie Bryant, about 11:00 a.m., accompanied the Robinsons in their car on a trip. They visited various places and all were drinking. At least one altercation took place between Littlejohn and Joseph Robinson. They returned to Lincoln in the early evening, going to their respective homes.

Shortly thereafter, Mamie Bryant came to the Robinsons' home and borrowed some matches. About ten minutes later, Mamie Bryant appeared again at the Robinsons'. She asked them to take her to the hospital because Littlejohn had thrown coal oil upon her and struck a match to her. The trial court permitted the Robinsons to testify as to her statements thus made to them.

The crime of manslaughter charged here is the killing of another without malice while engaged in the doing of an unlawful act; that is something which the defendant had no right to do. State v. Woods, 7 Pennewill 499, 77 A. 490. Seizing upon the element of the crime that death must be caused by the doing of an unlawful act, Littlejohn argues that there is no evidence that he intentionally set Mamie Bryant afire.

The argument is that the only evidence offered by the State was the statement made by the deceased to the Robinsons that Littlejohn threw coal oil on her and threw a lighted match on her. This evidence is characterized as circumstantial which, under the rule, must be inconsistent with any hypothesis other than guilt. Holland v. State, 9 Terry 559, 107 A.2d 920. Thus, it is argued, the statement made by the deceased is as consistent with the view that the coal oil had been thrown and ignited accidentally.

We think the argument without merit. The deceased's statement was to the effect that Littlejohn first threw coal oil on her and then threw a lighted match on her. If this statement was accepted by the jury, as obviously it was, any possibility of accident is precluded. Furthermore, the deceased's statement is not circumstantial evidence but is direct evidence even though hearsay. This being so, the rule of Holland v. State has no application.

Next, Littlejohn argues that the State failed to prove any motive on his part to set fire to the deceased. This may be so but there is no requirement of law that the State must prove a motive. The lack of proof of motive may be of importance in a trial of a crime involving an element of willfulness and malice when the State is relying solely upon circumstantial evidence, State v. Buckingham, 11 Terry 469, 134 A.2d 568, but as we have pointed out, this conviction does not stand solely upon circumstantial evidence. The State may, of course, always prove motive if it can, but its inability to do so is not fatal. 21 Am.Jur. 2, Criminal Law, § 86.

Littlejohn next argues that the State failed to prove the cause of death and to connect it with his act. The deceased actually died from a severe distention of her stomach related to the presence of a huge ulcer on the lesser curvature. The doctor who so testified went on to state that 'these...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Whalen v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • January 10, 1980
    ...We agree with the defendant that the circumstances show the statement was not "induced by the shock of the event." Littlejohn v. State, Del.Supr., 219 A.2d 155, 157 (1966) (citations omitted). Thus, because the statement was not spontaneous, it was not admissible as an excited We disagree, ......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • October 14, 1987
    ...solely with the reasonable hypothesis of guilt." Smith v. State, Del.Supr., 229 A.2d 21, 21 (1967) (citing Littlejohn v. State, Del.Supr., 219 A.2d 155, 157 (1966)). Thus, prior to 1972, if the evidence was purely circumstantial and there was an alternative explanation of innocence that was......
  • Morris v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • March 28, 2002
    ...No. 280, 1999, Hartnett, J., 2000 WL 990973 (June 29, 2000). 40. Gannon v. State, 704 A.2d 272, 274 (Del. 1998). 41. Littlejohn v. State, 219 A.2d 155, 157 (Del. 1966). 42. Appellant's Op. Brief at 43. For example, Hughes testified that he asked Bibbins "What, did he try to rob you?" Simila......
  • Herhal v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
    • October 8, 1971
    ...court committed error in refusing to charge the jury in accordance with his request on motive. Reliance is made upon Littlejohn v. State, 219 A.2d 155 (Del.Supr. 1966). In that case the argument was that the State had failed to prove any motive on Littlejohn's part to set fire to his deceas......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Dial-in testimony.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 150 No. 4, April 2002
    • April 1, 2002
    ...testifying. In many of these cases, the declarant was the victim of a homicide, the crime being charged. See, e.g., Littlejohn v. State, 219 A.2d 155 (Del. 1966) (holding admissible a statement by the deceased ten minutes after a fatal attack); Washington v. State, 98 So. 605 (Fla. 1924) (h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT