Maddox v. State
| Decision Date | 22 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22573 |
| Citation | 189 N.W. 398,108 Neb. 809 |
| Parties | WILLIAM MADDOX v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Thurston county: GUY T. GRAVES JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Mark J Ryan and R. J. Millard, for plaintiff in error.
Clarence A. Davis, Attorney General, and Jackson B. Chase, contra.
Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ROSE, ALDRICH and FLANSBURG, JJ REDICK, District Judge.
In a prosecution by the state in the district court for Thurston county, William Maddox, defendant, was charged with murder in the first degree. He pleaded not guilty and was convicted of murder in the second degree and for that felony was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. As plaintiff in error he presents for review the record of his conviction.
Defendant was a farm-hand 37 years of age. He shot and killed his employer, John G. Schnier, on the latter's farm in Thurston county, June 20, 1921, where he had been employed for three months. He had made his home with his employer. Schnier's family consisted of himself, Marie Schnier, his wife, and his son, a boy 8 years of age. Defendant occupied a room on the second floor of the family home. He went fishing Saturday afternoon June 18, 1921, and returned Sunday June 19, 1921. He arose Monday morning June 20, 1921, about 10 o'clock and declined breakfast. The same day Schnier left his work in a field and went home for his noon meal. Five guests had just arrived in an automobile. They were George Korn, Lena Korn, Lillie Krohn, Arnold Krohn, and Charles Kirchner, relatives of Marie Schnier. Between noon and 1 o'clock the Schnier family, the guests and defendant ate dinner together. Shortly thereafter Schnier went in his automobile to Pender, three and one-half miles, taking with him George Korn, Charles Kirchner and defendant. Within an hour, perhaps, Schnier returned to his home with the same passengers, and in addition James H. Parker, a new farm-hand. Schnier and Parker went promptly to the barn, a short distance from the house across a lot, and began to harness a team of horses. Defendant went through the house to his room on the second floor, got his shotgun, came down stairs, tampered with the telephone on his way out, and went toward the barn. Marie Schnier ran half way across the lot between the house and barn, shouted to her husband to run, and warned him that defendant had his gun. Schnier ran out of the barn on the opposite side toward a grove of trees, and went into a little hollow, where the hat on his head was exposed to view. The direction he had taken was observed by defendant, who walked within range, took aim and fired. Schnier was found dead where he had fallen in the edge of a corn field near the grove of trees. After the shooting defendant, still carrying the shotgun, approached George Korn, who was standing near the automobile in which Schnier's guests had arrived, ordered Korn to start the motor, and got into the rear seat. Korn obeyed. With defendant giving directions, Korn drove to a farm house several miles away, where defendant had lived for a time while working on the surrounding farm. After brief conversations with his former employers, defendant, occupying the rear seat in the automobile, directed Korn to drive to West Point. On the way there defendant was arrested and disarmed.
That the homicide occurred in the manner outlined is not disputed. The defense is insanity or a lapse of memory during which defendant, according to his testimony, remembers nothing in connection with the homicidal act or with his attempt to escape.
Insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction for murder in the second degree is urged as a ground of reversal. It is insisted that manslaughter is the highest degree of homicide of which defendant could have been found guilty under any view of the evidence. This position is untenable. The homicide was not the result of a sudden quarrel or the recent exchange of harsh words. Defendant's term of employment ended June 18, 1921. He went fishing the next day, returned to the home of Schnier a day later and was a guest of the latter until the time of the tragedy, June 20, 1921. Defendant ate dinner with Schnier, his family, and his guests, and went with him in his automobile to Pender and back, not more than two hours before the shooting occurred. Previously there had been a controversy between them over wages. It is fairly inferable from the evidence that Schnier had not paid defendant what was due; that defendant had threatened "to take it out of his hide;" that defendant had appealed to the wife of Schnier to influence her husband to make payment, threatening trouble; that the wife told defendant her husband had been unable to raise money. Defendant, without receiving his wages, had been displaced by a new farmhand. He procured a deadly weapon and tampered with the telephone. He followed Schnier, who ran from danger. He took deliberate aim and shot and killed his employer. While armed, he immediately attempted flight in an automobile, directing the driver where to go. The evidence sustains the finding that he was not insane. The provocation of being displaced as a farm-hand without receiving his wages perhaps accounts for his escaping a conviction for murder in the first degree. There is no reason for doubt as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict.
Defendant criticizes testimony relating to Schnier's son, to Schnier's wife, to the guests, and to the dinner party insisting that the issues were sanity and the degree of crime, if any crime was committed. All of these persons were witnesses to some incident connected with the homicide. Their names were indorsed on the information. They all testified and their relationship to or interest in Schnier were proper subjects of inquiry. Some of the testimony was given in response to preliminary inquiries about the incidents and circumstances leading up to the shooting. Other proofs supported the charge. The state of defendant's mind, as indicated by his conduct, appearance, and utterances at the dinner preceding the homicide, was a proper subject of inquiry under the circumstances. A defendant who pleads not guilty to the charge of murder in the first degree...
To continue reading
Request your trial