Maxwell v. Commonwealth

• Citation: 167 Va. 490
• Parties: EDITH MAXWELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.
• Decision Date: 11 September 1936
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 490

167 Va. 490

EDITH MAXWELL v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 11, 1936.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Browning and Eggleston, JJ.

1. HOMICIDE — Evidence — Threats — Threats Made Year or More Previous to Killing — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for homicide, the Commonwealth contended that accused had a feeling of hatred toward deceased, her father, and wilfully and premeditatedly killed him, but nearly all of the "threats" relied on by the Commonwealth were made a year or more previous to the killing. While this did not render them inadmissible, it might tend to weaken, in the minds of the jury, the probative value of the words spoken.

2. HOMICIDE — Evidence — Degree of Offense — Reasonable Doubt between First and Second Degree Resolved in Accused's Favor. — If there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty of murder in the first or second degree, that doubt must be resolved in accused's favor.

3. HOMICIDE — Questions for Jury — Defense of Justifiable Homicide — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for homicide, accused and her witnesses contended that the killing was in self-defense. While their story was not controverted by any direct testimony, there was evidence of circumstances affecting the credibility of the witnesses themselves and casting doubt on probability of their account of the killing.

Held: That this made the defense of justifiable homicide a question for the jury.

4. HOMICIDE — Evidence — Sufficiency — Murder in the First Degree — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for homicide, the death of deceased, father of accused, was caused by a blow on the head which, according to the testimony of accused and her witnesses, she inflicted with a shoe in self-defense as deceased held her by the neck or throat. The killing was either done in this manner or in some unexplained way, but the Commonwealth contended that it was wilful and premeditated, laying stress on the additional circumstances that bloody bed clothing was found concealed under other soiled clothes, and that accused had made "threats" against deceased, showing a feeling of hatred toward him. It was shown that accused's mother put the bed clothing where it was found, which was in the usual receptacle for soiled clothing, and that nearly all the "threats" were made a year or more previous to the killing.

Held: That the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of murder in the first degree.

5. HOMICIDE — Indictment — Sufficiency of Short Form of Indictment — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for homicide, it was contended that the short form of indictment, drawn according to section 4865 of the Code of 1936, did not give sufficient notice of the cause and nature of the accusation.

Held: That there was no merit in this contention, under authority of Hurd Commonwealth, 159 Va. 880, 165 S.E. 536, and Bausell Commonwealth, 165 Va. 693, 181 S.E. 453.

6. BAIL AND RECOGNIZANCE — In Criminal Cases — After Conviction — Refusal Moot Question upon Reversal of Conviction — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for homicide resulting in a verdict of murder in the first degree, accused, after the writ of error was granted, applied to the judge of the trial court for bail, and to the judgment refusing such bail a writ of error was awarded.

Held: That since the judgment of conviction must be reversed and the cause remanded, the question whether the court erred in refusing to admit accused to bail had become moot.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Wise county. Hon. H. A. W. Skeen, judge presiding.

The opinion states the case.

M. J. Fulton, Charles H. Smith, Gail Laughlin, W. W. G. Dotson, R. P. Bruce and A. A. Skeen, for the plaintiff in error.

Abram P. Staples, Attorney-General, Edwin H. Gibson, Assistant Attorney-General, and Joseph L. Kelly, Jr., Special Assistant, for the Commonwealth.

EGGLESTON, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Petitioner, Edith Maxwell, and Ann Maxwell were jointly indicted in the Circuit Court of Wise county for the murder of Trigg Maxwell, the father of Edith and the husband of Ann Maxwell. Edith Maxwell was separately tried, convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to confinement in the State penitentiary for twenty-five years.

The principal assignment of error is that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict.

Taken in the light of the verdict, the record discloses these facts: Petitioner is a young woman twenty-one years of age, still living with her parents in Wise county where she was born and reared. Largely through her own efforts she had finished high school and obtained two years of college education fitting herself as a teacher. She had taught for one year in the public schools of her native county and was preparing to continue such work.

Trigg Maxwell, petitioner's father, was some fifty odd years old and a coal miner by occupation. When sober he was kind and good to his family, but unfortunately he was addicted to drink and when under the influence of liquor was quarrelsome, abusive to his wife and children, and inclined to otherwise treat them unreasonably. Whether he was drunk at the time of his death is the subject of much conflict in the evidence. The accused and her witnesses claim that he was, while the Commonwealth's witnesses contend that he was not. The jury's verdict, of course, settled this conflict adversely to the accused. But even so, the Commonwealth's evidence shows that he had been drinking shortly preceding the occurrences leading to his death.

On Saturday afternoon, July 20, 1935, Trigg Maxwell left home and did not return until about 10:30 P.M. Only his wife, Ann Maxwell, and his twelve year old daughter, Mary Katherine, were then there and both had retired. He turned on the light and immediately began quarreling with his wife as to where she had been picking berries that day and where she intended going the next. Something was said by him about giving her "thirty minutes to leave the house" the next morning. Thinking that he was drunk, the wife remonstrated with him and urged him to go to bed, but he declined to do so and went out of the house. Mrs. Maxwell and Mary Katherine then went to sleep.

About 12:30 A.M. the husband returned home. Upon finding that Edith had not then returned he became irritated, remarking that "A man ought to take a club and break her neck." His wife again remonstrated with him, accused him of being drunk and again tried to induce him to retire, which he refused to do.

According to the next door neighbors, who testified for the Commonwealth, shortly before 1:00 o'clock that night a car drove up, some one got out and went into the Maxwell home. Almost immediately an altercation began and continued for about ten minutes. Loud voices of the father, mother and Edith were heard. The parties appeared to be "scuffling." In a short while the voice of Trigg Maxwell was heard repeatedly crying in distress, "Oh Lordy, Oh Lordy!" Edith, partly clad, was seen to run out of the house and heard to call to her younger sister, Mary Katherine, to bring her shoes and clothes.

Chant Kelly, the head of the family living next door and still awake, went over to the Maxwell home to render aid. He was met by the accused, who refused his proffered assistance. Kelly then returned to his own house. Immediately the radio began playing in the Maxwell house with sufficient volume to drown out any other noises therein. This continued for about ten minutes, then there was quiet.

After a period of about thirty minutes Mary Katherine Maxwell ran to the Kelly residence calling for help, saying that her father was dying. Upon the arrival of the neighbors and a physician, Trigg Maxwell was found lying in the doorway leading from the kitchen to the porch, with his head about thirty inches from a meat block. He was clad only in his underclothing, was unconscious and died within fifteen minutes.

In explanation the accused, her mother and younger sister, Mary Katherine, said that the deceased had been drunk and had fallen and struck his head against the meat block, sustaining the injuries of which he died. Not until after the arrest, a day or so later, of the accused and her mother, upon the charge of having murdered the deceased, was anything said by either of them, or by Mary Katherine, as to there having been any altercation between Edith and her father.

An autopsy performed on the body of the deceased disclosed three wounds upon the head. The first was a fairly clean cut three-fourths of an inch long commencing one inch above the hair margin and extending down through the entire scalp to the bone. The skull was not fractured. One of the other wounds was on the left side of the head and the other was on the right. They were not cuts but more in the nature of severe bruises. There was likewise a slight bruise above the nose and both eyes were somewhat swollen and bruised. The deceased had also sustained a bruise on the left forearm and a slight cut on the right little finger. According to the physicians, death was caused by a brain hemorrhage attributable to the wound just above the forehead and first described.

While there is some conflict in the details, the testimony of Edith, her mother and sister is substantially in accord. They say that Edith returned home about 1:00 o'clock in the morning and prepared to retire. She looked under the couch on which she slept to get her bed covers but found that they were not there. She then started into her father's room for the necessary covering and was warned by her younger sister not to go in there as her father was drunk, had been quarreling with her mother and had threatened to run the latter away from home the next day. To this Edith replied: "That doesn't make any difference. It's not the first time he has been drunk. He is...