Odette v. State
| Decision Date | 23 April 1895 |
| Citation | 90 Wis. 258,62 N.W. 1054 |
| Parties | ODETTE v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Marathon county; Charles V. Bardeen, Judge.
William Odette, convicted of murder in the second degree, brings error. Affirmed.
The information in this case charges the plaintiff in error with having, November 3, 1893, at Easton, in Marathon county, killed Louis Odette, with a premeditated design to effect his death. To that charge the accused pleaded not guilty. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict finding the accused guilty of murder in the second degree. Thereupon the court adjudged that the said William Odette be punished by imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison at Waupun for the period of 20 years, said term to commence at 12 o'clock noon, December 5, 1893, and that the fifth day of such imprisonment be solitary confinement. To that judgment this writ of error is sued out.John Livermore and Bump & Kreutzer, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Mylrea, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error and his two brothers, Albert and Henry, were unmarried, and lived with their mother at the house where the homicide occurred. Two other brothers, Louis and Joseph, were each married, and lived by themselves, Louis' house not being far distant from his mother's. On the night previous to the homicide, the accused was at his brother Louis' house. There were others there, including Albert, Louis and his wife, and two other women, apparently engaged in drinking and carousing to a late hour. The next morning most of the crowd, including the accused and his brothers Louis and Albert, and two of the women, were at the house of the mother. They had a jug of liquor among them, and it was apparently free for all. There is evidence tending to prove that, after some hours of drinking and quarreling, the controversies between the accused and his brothers Louis and Albert became serious; that some striking and clinching had been indulged; that the accused threatened Louis, and started to go into the front door of the house; that Albert, conceiving that he was going into the house for a bad purpose, grabbed hold of him and threw him down, and held him there for some minutes; that finally Albert asked the accused what he was going to do, and he said, “Nothing”; that Albert then let him up, and he went into the front door of the house; that Albert then walked around to the back side of the house, and the accused soon came out with his gun; that Albert then asked him what he was going to do with the gun; that the accused answered that he only wanted to scare Louis; that Albert then told him that the gun was not the proper thing to fool with, and thereupon grabbed hold of it; that at that time Louis stood off about 18 feet from the accused, with a knife in his right hand; that Louis then came up and grabbed hold of the gun with his left hand; that about that time Albert stepped away, and the gun was fired, and Louis was shot through the heart from the front part of his body.
1. Error is assigned because the witness Holbrook, after testifying in behalf of the state to the effect that, a few hours after the homicide, and while the accused was still at the house of his mother, the accused said that he did not kill Louis, and then, after being cross-examined, he again testified in behalf of the state to the effect that about the same time he and the accused walked out into the field, and while there the accused gave him seven cartridges belonging to his gun, and said that he was going away, and did not want the cartridges, nor the gun. When asked what the accused meant by such statement, he was allowed to answer: He then gave the conversation in detail. It was claimed on the trial that the accused was, at the time of making the statement, still under the influence of liquor, and that he had endeavored to escape, and had been brought back by force. The action and appearance of the accused at the time may have given color and meaning to the language employed. If so, it was proper. But, even if it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orr v. State
...to your honor's statements.' The Attorney General cites us Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 644, 47 N.W. 1055, Odette v. State, 90 Wis. 258, 62 N.W. 1054, State v. Price, 30 S.D. 299, 138 N.W. 14, and German Savings Bank of Davenport v. Citizens' National Bank, 101 Iowa 530, 70 N.W. 76......
-
Neuenfeldt v. State
...not error for the trial court not to give the instruction on its own motion even though the evidence would sustain it. Odette v. State (1895), 90 Wis. 258, 62 N.W. 1054; Frank v. State (1896), 94 Wis. 211, 68 N.W. 657. This rule has been consistently followed up to the present. Sullivan v. ......
-
Fuller v. State
...These words have been used in cases where jurors seem somewhat reluctant to agree on a verdict in criminal cases. In Odette v. State, 90 Wis. 258, 62 N.W. 1054, 1055, the trial judge urged a jury not to stand out in an 'unruly and obstinate way.' This was held not to be reversible It was st......
-
State v. Kent
...rights of the defendant have been prejudiced by the admission of irrelevant and immaterial testimony. Section 7439, Comp. Laws; Odette v. State, 62 N.W. 1054; State Reddington, 64 N.W. 170; Moore v. State, 28 S.W. 686; State, v. Moore 22 S.W. 1086. The allowance of a challenge for cause int......