People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 10 March 1893
• Citation: 95 Mich. 87,54 N.W. 648
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HARRIS.

54 N.W. 648

95 Mich. 87

PEOPLE v. HARRIS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 10, 1893

Error to circuit court, Sanilac county; Watson Beach, Judge.

Conviction of Ephraim Harris for manslaughter. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

McGinley & Houck, for appellant.

A. A Ellis, Atty. Gen., and E. C. Babcock, Pros. Atty., for the People.

McGRATH J.

Respondent was informed against for murder, and was tried and convicted of manslaughter. The defense was justifiable or excusable homicide. The parties lived upon adjoining farms, and the affray occurred in the highway, at about 9 o'clock in the morning. Deceased was 23 years of age, weighed 180 pounds, was nearly 6 feet in height, and was strong and muscular, while the accused was but 16 years of age. The killing was done with an ordinary pocketknife. Deceased had but recently commenced to build a house evidently contemplating marriage. He had been for some time paying attention to a young lady in the neighborhood, who was a cousin of the accused. Evidently he had made little progress in his suit. Accused and his cousin were much attached to each other, and were frequently in each other's company. This intimacy appears to have displeased decedent, and he did not hesitate to express his displeasure to both. It was shown that he had said to the young lady, in effect, that their devotion to each other could not be attributed to their relationship. He had warned the accused to keep out of his way, and had threatened to break his neck if he did not; had angrily struck at him on one or more occasions; and had on one occasion, while accused was sitting beside his cousin, caught him by the foot in anger, and dragged him from his seat to the floor. A few days before the tragedy the father of the accused and decedent met; the building of the house was referred to, and in a joking manner Mr. Harris said to decedent, "Suppose that before you get your house built some one takes away your girl?" and decedent replied in an angry tone, "Well, there will be a dead man on this road." The accused does not appear to have resented any of these indignities, but rather feared and avoided the deceased. It was shown that on several occasions when there was even a prospect of meeting decedent, the accused had requested others to accompany him on his errand or to his home. On the morning of the day of the tragedy the mother of the accused requested him to go to a neighbor's for some milk. He at first hesitated, giving as a reason that he feared meeting deceased, but, on being assured that deceased was not about, he started upon his errand with tin pail in hand.

There were but three witnesses who claimed to have seen the affray. One, a brother of decedent, who was 18 rods distant, claimed that deceased did not attack the accused till after the latter had drawn his knife. The other two witnesses were the father and mother of the accused, who were also some distance from the scene. Their testimony tended to show that deceased was the aggressor. The accused testifies that after reaching the highway he observed deceased enter it; that he was on one side of the highway and deceased on the other; that the latter crossed the highway, and intercepted him, and began the attack violently, angrily, and with profanity; that the witness was thrown to the ground, but managed to regain his feet; that he retreated in a northwesterly direction to the fence, calling for help, and entreating deceased to let him alone, but deceased followed him, and threw him down the second time with great violence; and when deceased was stabbed he was in the act of choking the accused. Even upon the brother's testimony it does not appear that the accused struck or struck at the deceased until the latter had grappled with the former. Deceased had dropped his mittens and a bag which he had upon his shoulder, in the highway, at some time during the affray, and there was testimony clearly tending to show that the place where the final struggle took place was some 20 feet northwesterly from where the mittens and bag lay. The brother's testimony was that when he first saw the parties defendant stood with his knife in one hand and the tin pail in the other, and that deceased was in the act of throwing down his mittens and the bag, after which he took hold of the accused, thus indicating that the accused stood upon the defensive, and that decedent made the attack, and forced the accused against the fence.

Upon the examination of the accused the defense sought to show not only the general reputation of the deceased for quarrelsomeness, but the violence of his temper and conduct when in anger, and defendant was asked to give instances or specific acts of violence within his knowledge or coming under his own observation, but the court excluded the testimony. We think this was error. The killing having been established, two things must...