Morrison v. State

• Decision Date: 03 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 358
• Parties: MORRISON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

51 S.W. 358

MORRISON v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 3, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Wilbarger county; G. A. Brown, Judge.

G. E. Morrison was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

Houston & Marum, Plemons & Veal, and Huff & Hall, for appellant. Matlock, Cowan & Burney and Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife by poisoning, and his punishment assessed at death.

We will briefly state the facts in the case. During the year preceding the death of deceased, appellant resided at Panhandle, Carson county, and was engaged in preaching there two consecutive Sundays in each month, and one Sunday in each month at Canadian, some 50 miles from Panhandle, on the Southern Kansas Railroad, and one Sunday at Higgins, some 20 miles further on, being between 70 and 80 miles from Panhandle. Appellant had been married to his wife about 17 years, and had lived at different places, and at one time had lived in California, and at another time in Oklahoma territory, from which last place he moved to Panhandle. He was born and raised in Illinois, and went to school at Carbondale, and there became acquainted with the main prosecuting witness, Miss Anna Whittlesey, and went to school with her. Subsequently Miss Whittlesey moved, with her father and mother and brother-in-law, to Topeka, Kan., and resided there 10 years previous to the death of the deceased. Appellant, in August previous to the death of his wife in October, 1897, met Miss Whittlesey (his school-days' sweetheart) at Topeka, and made offers of marriage. This offer of marriage occurred in August, at which time appellant pretended to Miss Whittlesey's brother-in-law, Norris, that his wife was dead, and had been dead 11 years; that he had quit preaching on account of throat trouble, and had been engaged in the cattle business for 8 years near Higgins, Tex., which, was his post office. He represented, also, that he was doing a thriving business, and made the same representations to Miss Whittlesey, and also stated to her that his cousin, Guy E. Morrison, whom Miss Whittlesey had known, 20 years before, at Carbondale, Ill., was married, and lived at Panhandle, and that he was the Methodist preacher at that place. The evidence discloses that this statement was wholly false. After appellant's engagement to Miss Whittlesey, he began a correspondence with her, urging his proposition of marriage, stating that he had intended for a number of years to come to her when he could do so honorably, and he believed he could now see the time. This statement was made on September 10th (one month before the death of his wife). In all of his letters to her he continuously represented himself as being in the cattle business, and a ranchman. He made another visit to Topeka, after his first, and previous to the death of his wife, and while returning from there, on one occasion, talked to a doctor relative to the doses and effect of strychnine and quinine. The death of the deceased was shown conclusively, by the testimony of experts, to have been caused from strychnine poison. Appellant procured strychnine for the ostensible purpose of poisoning "varmints," which he said were catching his chickens; and this was procured on Friday before his wife's death on Sunday. On the day previous he had procured a box of quinine, with some empty capsules. On the Friday night before her death, deceased went to the Swiss Bell Ringers, leaving appellant at home. Appellant then had possession of the strychnine, which he had secured about supper time that evening. The next morning he took the strychnine back to the drug store, telling the druggist that he was afraid to use it for fear he would poison his neighbors' chickens. The druggist had not charged him anything for the strychnine, and opened the package, and poured it back in the bottle, but did not notice whether any of it was gone, save and except that he noticed the string around the package was looser than it was when he let appellant have it. Sunday night appellant preached, and alluded in a pathetic manner to the parting with loved ones at death. About 10 o'clock Sunday night, he called upon his neighbors for assistance, after announcing the serious illness of his wife. The neighbors responded promptly, and found her in paroxysms and spasms, evidently due to strychnine poison. He made a number of false statements in regard to the manner in which he had retired, and the like, and announced the fact that his wife had taken nothing except quinine, and he exhibited this quinine to most every one, with the announcement that there was nothing wrong with the quinine. The bed upon which deceased was resting was the only bed in the room, and it showed that no one had lain on it except deceased. The neighbors further testified that when they reached the house he was in full dress, and showed no evidence whatever of having retired for the night. Deceased died at 12:30 that night, and shortly after her death appellant made statements to the effect that her death was due to a complication of kidney disease and deranged menstruation, and also falsely stated that Dr. Warner, who had been sent for, and arrived after her death, had told him that deceased's death was due to blood poisoning as a result of kidney trouble, which statement appellant repeated by letter to his wife's kin people and several persons. In the meantime he kept up his correspondence with Miss Whittlesey, writing her a letter two days before the death of his wife, and the day after her burial, asserting his love in the most lavish terms, and announcing "the death of Guy's wife," and immediately after the death of the deceased notified her of his early contemplated visit to Topeka. About a week after deceased's death, Miss Whittlesey wrote him that her sister, Mrs. Norris, said that he might have a wife in Texas. In reply to which he announced his fear that Miss Whittlesey's people might separate them, and proposed to show recommendation papers to prove that all he told her was true; and in carrying out this deception he procured a map, and marked a ranch on it, and forged a recommendation as to his character, and that he had no family, and was engaged in the stock business, and also forged a deed to himself, which papers he presented to Miss Whittlesey about October 24th. These papers were found on his person when he was arrested on his return to Topeka after his wife's death. When appellant was arrested he was held a few days; was released, and fled; and about three months thereafter was re-arrested in San Francisco. Prior to the trial depositions were taken of Dr. and Mrs. Holland, residing in California, who testified that deceased had made statements to them indicating the desire to take her own life on account of distress arising from female derangement, which depositions were on file at the time of the trial. A medical analysis of the stomach of deceased was made about six weeks after her death, and showed strychnine; and the witnesses who saw her dying agonies all testify to the distinctive symptoms of strychnine poison. The motive for the killing, as contended by the prosecution, was in order that he might marry Miss Whittlesey, and obtain her money. These are substantially the main facts adduced, as disclosed by the record.

Appellant's first assignment of error is "that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, for the reasons set out in the motion, as follows: (1) The acts and facts alleged against defendant, as alleged, are not sufficient to constitute an offense. (2) The indictment fails to show that the charge therein contained is alleged as a statutory offense, in that it fails to show that the act was unlawfully done. (3) Because the same charges no offense against the law of the state, in that it nowhere alleges that the poison charged to have been administered was in quantities sufficient to produce death. (4) The same nowhere charges that defendant knew that the drug charged to have been given deceased was deadly, either in nature or quantity. (5) Same nowhere alleges the quantity of said drug administered, or that same was given in amount sufficient to have caused the death of the deceased." The charging part of the indictment is as follows: Defendant "did then and there, with malice aforethought, kill Mrs. G. E. Morrison, by poison, to wit, the said G. E. Morrison did then and there mingle and cause to be mingled certain poison, called `strychnine,' with a certain medicine, called `quinine,' with the intent then and there to injure and kill the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison, he, the said G. E. Morrison, then and there well knowing that the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison would take and swallow the said poisoned medicine, and then and there intended that the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison should do so; and the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison did then and there, not knowing that the said medicine was so poisoned, take and swallow the same, and the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison, of the poison aforesaid, so mingled in the said medicine as aforesaid, and by her swallowed as aforesaid, did, on or about the 10th day of October, A. D. 1897, in the county and state aforesaid, die. And the grand jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths in said court, do further present that G. E. Morrison, on or about the 10th of October, 1897, in the county of Carson and state aforesaid, did with malice aforethought kill Mrs. G. E. Morrison, by then and there, with intent to injure and kill the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison, causing her, the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison, to take and swallow certain poison, called `strychnine,' the manner and means used by the said G. E. Morrison to cause and induce the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison to take and swallow the said poison being to the grand jurors unknown, with the intent then and there to injure and kill the said Mrs. G. E. Morrison, the said G. E. Morrison well knowing that...