People v. Braun

• Decision Date: 18 April 1899
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BRAUN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

158 N.Y. 558

53 N.E. 529

PEOPLE

v.BRAUN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 18, 1899.

Appeal from criminal trial term, New York county.

Adrian Braun was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John F. Brennan, for appellant.

Geo. C. Andrews, Dist. Atty., for the People.

BARTLETT, J.

Adrian Braun, the defendant, was committed to Sing Sing Prison in September, 1897, to serve a term of two years for assault in the second degree, upon the complaint of one John Carroll. It appears that the defendant, at his residence, in the city of New York, was engaged in a quarrel with his wife, when certain men rushed in, and the assault for which he was convicted took place at that time upon two of the persons who thus appeared upon the scene. The record is very vague as to the details of this transaction. Between the time of defendant's removal to Sing Sing prison and the homicide, on the 5th day of March, 1898, his wife had paid him two or three visits. On each of those occasions she brought him luxuries, and the interviews, always held in the presence of prison officials, seemed to have been ordinarily pleasant and cordial. On the day the wife was killed she reached the prison about a quarter past 3 in the afternoon, it being Saturday. On this occasion she brought two cans of milk, a pair of socks, and some matches for the defendant. Agreeably to her request, her husband was sent for, and she met him in ‘Jackson's Room,’ so called, which was the office of the state detective connected with the prison, and the place where interviews were held between convicts and their visiting friends. Jackson or his representative was always present, and two or three convicts engaged in and about the place were where they could observe all that was going on. On this occasion Jackson was at his desk in the room where the interview was held, and three convicts were stationed where they could command a view of the scene. The defendant reached the room about 20 minutes after 3, and, as appears, greeted his wife affectionately by shaking hands and kissing her. They then seated themselves on a bench which ran around the walls of the room, and upon which the seats were separated by iron arms similar to those in the ordinary railroad depot waiting room. They occupied adjoining seats, the wife sitting on the left of the defendant. The four witnesses referred to agree that the conversation was carried on in a low tone; there was no evidence of excitement or anger; nothing to indicate a quarrel; and it was treated by all, during its progress, as the merest commonplace, such as is usual when visitors were present. At 10 minutes to 4 Jackson called to them, stating that the prison building was closed on Saturday to visitors at 4 o'clock, and that he could not give them any more time. The defendant pleaded earnestly for more time, having arisen and approached the desk, and the wife also came forward from her seat and joined in the request. Thereupon Jackson said he would give them the remaining 10 minutes, until 4 o'clock, and they resumed their seats. Jackson testified that in about a minute and a half after this he heard something like a scuffle, and, looking around, discovered that they had risen to their feet, and the defendant had his left arm around the waist of his wife, having drawn her up to him, and was plunging a knife that he held in his right hand into the left side of her neck; that he rushed over, and ‘grabbed’ defendant by the arm, and pulled him away from his wife; and the sergeant of the guard, or some other officer who had been called, came in and took the defendant by the other arm. Without going into further details, the witnesses testify that the wife staggered forward two or three steps, sank to her knees, then fell over upon her back, the blood spurting in large quantities from her neck, mouth, and nostrils. The prison doctor was summoned, reached there almost immediately, and stated that she could not live to exceed a minute. She died almost immediately, and the witnesses agree that from the time of the assault to her death was somewhere from three to five minutes. It is to be remarked that the defendant, from that time until the day of his trial, persistently refused to state what motive actuated him in committing this terrible act. The defense did not deny the killing, but sought to establish the insanity of the defendant.

The people proved, in detail, the circumstances of the killing, and also established, by a convict named Schwab, who worked by the side of the defendant in the room where potatoes were peeled for prison use, that the latter had made to him repeated threats against his wife. He testified that he was committed to the prison on the 7th of October, 1897, and was at once assigned a place to work in the potato peeling department alongside of the defendant; that after he had been there two or three days the defendant grew somewhat confidential, and, in talking about how he came to be in prison, stated that ‘he would get square with his wife for sending him to prison; that some day she would come up, and she would not go down again.’ The witness swears to another conversation on the same subject the next month, November. He testified as follows: ‘One day my knife was quite dull, and I asked Braun would he sharpen it for me, and at the same time I asked him to loan me his, which he did. He handed me his knife, and started to sharpen mine, and when he returned mine I said, ‘Braun, your knife is quite sharp; too sharp to peel potatoes with;’ and he said, ‘I don't want it to peel potatoes with, for I will do something else with it.’ I said, ‘What are you going to do with it?’ He said, ‘I will stick it into that God damned bitch of mine some time when she comes up here.’' This witness further swore that at the next interview, some weeks later, the defendant said to him, after his wife had departed, ‘What do you think she brought me up?’ I says, ‘How do I know?’ And he said, ‘She brought me a couple of cans of milk, a pair of socks, and two boxes of matches.’ I said, ‘I think that is more than you ought to expect from a woman who goes out washing, as you say she does.’ He says, ‘I will get square with her some time. She won't have to spend many more sixty cents on me to come up to see me.” This witness further testified that some little time after this third conversation he (the witness) received a package that contained a small Roman Catholic prayer book entitled ‘Child of Mary’; that he showed it to the defendant, who borrowed it of him, and after two or three days returned it. Later the witness, on examining the book, found that the defendant had marked a certain portion of it, and asked him why he did so, and he replied that he did not believe the passage which was marked. The portions of the book marked were certain questions under the heading of the fifth commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ These questions were designed to probe the conscience of the reader as to whether he had been guilty of anger, violent passion, or had indulged in revenge, or desired the death of another. The defendant did not take the stand on his own behalf at the trial, and this testimony of Schwab went to the jury uncontradicted, save as its full force and effect might have been somewhat broken by the fact that it was given by a convict serving his term in state prison. In this connection, it is to be observed that no possible motive was disclosed to induce Schwab to swear away the life of the defendant. So far as we are able to judge, it was testimony given under legal compulsion, and by a man who did not know defendant until he met him in state prison.

There is one slight piece of evidence bearing on the mental condition of the defendant sworn to by the first witness who took the stand. The district attorney moved to strike it out, but the trial judge allowed it to remain. Bernard Shaffer, a witness for the people, swore that he was a resident of the city of New York; knew the Brauns; and that in the month of July, 1897, prior to the defendant's conviction for assault, he called at their house, as representing some charitable society of which defendant had asked assistance, and he questioned Mrs. Braun as to how it came they were in such poor circumstances, ‘and she told me that her husband was out of work, and that he lost all his jobs by his not being right in his head.’ The defense swore a witness, John Mielich, who had known the defendant for 13 or 14 years prior to the homicide, but had lost sight of him for a long time, until about 2 or 3 years before that event. He testified that he had seen the defendant on a number orf occasions, and that his face would flush suddenly, and that he seemed to be shivering, and always muttering to himself. Another witness, Mary Schmechenbecker, the wife of defendant's uncle, testified that when she first knew the defendant, in early life, he was ‘jolly, full of life; always in for a good time’; but, during the last two years before the homicide, a great change had taken place. The defendant was in the habit of visiting the house of witness at intervals during the last two years of his life before going to state prison. She testified, generally, to his strange actions on several occasions, and, referring to a certain time, she stated: ‘That day, when he came to my house, he looked like a man who was able to kill anybody. I looked around, and was deadly afraid of him. He looked very ragged, and never like the man that he did before. He had no hair combed. He had his shirt sleeve open and unbuttoned, and he looked wild, and I was deadly afraid of him.’ She further stated that his eyes were wild looking, and rolled in his head, and she did not like his looks. Martin Schmechenbecker, the husband of the last witness, testified that the defendant's mother was his sister, and that when she was between 40 and 50 years of age she was committed to an insane...