Monroe v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1859
• Citation: 23 Tex. 210
• Parties: MARY MONROE v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

23 Tex. 210

MARY MONROE

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1859.

If the exculpatory testimony, relied on by a defendant, to rebut a prima facie case of guilt, established by the state, from its intrinsic weight, consistency, or probability, be such as to make it incredible; if it conflict with facts clearly established, implicating the defendant in the crime charged; and other circumstances, subject it properly to suspicion; and the jury, in determining upon the credibility of the witnesses, disregard it, and find the defendant guilty, it is not error to refuse a new trial.

Where the court had properly instructed the jury, as to the character of the doubt, that should acquit the defendant altogether; and also, as to what would reduce the homicide from murder in the first, to murder in the second degree, and as to the elements of each; and then charged them, that, “if, then, they were satisfied, from the proof, that the accused was guilty of murder in the first degree, they should simply say so; but if they believed otherwise, or were not satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was guilty of murder in the first degree, then they should find her guilty of murder in the second degree, and proceed to assess the penalty,” etc.: Held, That the charge was not calculated to mislead the jury, by inducing the belief, that they were bound to find the defendant guilty of murder in the second degree; or that the doubts, to the benefits of which the defendant was entitled, should, by them, be applied with less force to the one grade of the offense, than to the other.

A juror, on his voir dire, stated that, from hearing a part of the evidence before the examining court, he had formed a partial opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, which, though it might, to some extent, he did not think would, influence his verdict; and further stated, that he had no fixed opinion in the case, that would influence his verdict; on a challenge for cause, the court adjudged the juror competent: Held, That there was no error: the juror had not formed such an opinion, as that the court could adjudge him disqualified. Code Crim. Proc. art. 597.

That a juror entertained a bad opinion, in general, of the defendant, which he expressed, is not, necessarily, a ground of disqualification; much less, will such an expression, made jocularly, before the trial, and not in reference to the case on which the defendant is to be tried, disqualify him.

APPEAL from Harris. Tried below before the Hon. Peter W. Gray.

This was an indictment against the appellant, charging her, in four several counts, with the murder of Mary Abigail Heady, on the 11th of August, 1858.

The first count charged the murder to have been committed by administering a poison, called cobalt; the second, by strangling with a cloth, tied around the neck of the deceased; the third, by throttling the deceased, and choking her to death, and the fourth, by means unknown to the grand jury.

On the trial of the case, at the fall term, 1858, George White, one of the regular jurors, was examined, touching his qualification, and was, by the defendant, challenged for cause. The juror stated, on his voir dire, that he had heard a part of the evidence before the examining court, and had formed a partial opinion on it, as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but did not think it would influence his verdict. On being asked, “if it would do so to any extent?” he replied: “it might.” To further questions, he said, he had no fixed opinion on the case, that would influence his verdict. On objection, by the defendant, that he had said, his opinion might influence him, the court ruled him competent. Being further interrogated, the juror answered, that he had formed a partial opinion, but had no fixed opinion at that time, which could influence his verdict; that it might be influenced by the partial opinion, he had formed, but he thought not. The objection being renewed, the court ruled as before; whereupon, the defendant challenged him peremptorily, and excepted to the ruling. In reply to a question from the court, the juror said, that he was properly understood as saying, “that he had no established opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, at that time.”

The deceased was a girl aged about sixteen or seventeen years, whom a Dr. Monroe (the husband of the defendant) brought to Texas, from Baltimore, during that summer (1858), claiming her as his niece, and she, recognizing him as her uncle. He took her to his residence, where she died. The deceased had been at the defendant's house but a few weeks, before she began to treat the girl with great harshness, rudeness and severity. It appeared, that the defendant was jealous of the girl, suspected an improper intimacy with her husband, and accused her of a want of virtue; it was proved by one of the witnesses, that she was violently opposed to a matrimonial engagement, which she stated to exist between her son (by a former marriage), William Stanley, and the deceased. Speaking on that subject to the witness (Mrs. Graham), she told her, that she would rather plunge a dagger to the girl's heart, then acknowledge her as a relation. This remark she had been heard to make three several times.

For several months before the death of the deceased, the defendant pursued a course of constant abuse towards the girl, rarely speaking kindly to her, and as stated by Mrs. Graham, using violence upon her person, by slapping her in the face, and on one occasion, whipping her with switches. She expressed the opinion to Mrs. Graham that she was not the niece of her husband, but an imposter; that she was of that opinion the first evening she saw her. She expressed the wish to Mrs. Graham, several times, that Abby (as the deceased was commonly called) would die, or was dead. On the day that Abby was buried, the defendant said, she was glad she was dead; the reason assigned by her, was, that she was out of her way, and now, she could have some peace. Mrs. Graham further testified, that the defendant showed no feeling of sorrow after the burial, sang very merrily, and said she was glad she was dead.

This witness had been residing in the family, for about four months preceding the death, and on the Sunday previous, left there, “because of the trouble going on; there had been threats made; did not know what might turn up, and did not wish to be there. Was afraid that something was going to happen, and did not know, but what we might all be poisoned; was afraid the defendant might do it.” The witness stated, that the defendant came to see her on Tuesday after she left, and wished her to return; she objected, but the defendant said, that if she would go back, she would guaranty that Abby should not bother her any more. (The witness stated, also, that Abby had never troubled her.) The defendant, several times said to the deceased, that if she was in her place, she would kill or destroy herself in some way. The girl was simple-minded, weak, timid and very affectionate; she stood in great fear of the defendant. She had no relations, nor other home in this country.

There was testimony (Mrs. Graham's) to show that the deceased wished to leave there a great many times, but the defendant would not allow it, because the deceased might spread reports against her. There was rebutting testimony tending to show that the deceased had expressed kind feelings, and those of gratitude towards the defendant, for kindness received from her, and of her refusal or unwillingness to leave her. It was proved, also, that, by promise of forgiveness and protection, the defendant obtained from the deceased, a confession, that she had had criminal intercourse with Dr. Monroe; after which her treatment was much worse. She charged her with being pregnant. After the death, on the evening of the burial, Mrs. Graham heard a whispered conversation between the defendant and her husband, as to what should be written to the friends of Abby, at the north, about her death. The defendant suggested, to write them that she died of whooping cough, or yellow fever. He replied that he left it all to her.

It was proved, that the defendant brought cobalt to the house, a month before the death of the deceased. There had been some conversation before it was brought there, in reference to the use of cobalt for killing flies. The witness (Mrs. Graham) saw Abby with it twice--the first time she had it, was ten days before her death, and the second time, on the Sunday preceding it. She asked the witness if it was poison; the witness told her to read for herself; that she would not like to try it. The witness heard the deceased say, that she would take anything that would poison her, if her aunt would get it for her. The defendant had spoken of sending the deceased away, but the latter threatened to expose her treatment of her, which led the defendant to change her mind. About a month or more before the death of the deceased, the defendant took poison, or something which she called poison, which made her very sick, and she said to the witness (Mrs. Graham) that she had rather be dead, than live as things were going on; she talked about poisoning herself, and insinuated, “that she would poison all; her husband and all.” The reason given for taking the poison (if such it was) was, “that she was miserable about her husband's and Abby's conduct.” The defendant stated to Mrs. Graham, that she died about eight o'clock on Wednesday evening, of the 11th day of August, 1858.

William Purvis testified, that about sundown of the day last named, while at his home, which was distant from the defendant's house two or three hundred yards, he heard, what he took to be the defendant whipping a young woman at her house. Had heard the same there on previous occasions, several times. This whipping lasted ten minutes; heard the screams of some one, and the defendant talking to her. Looked over there, but...