People v. Higgins

Citation159 N.E.2d 179,186 N.Y.S.2d 623,5 N.Y.2d 607
Parties, 159 N.E.2d 179 PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas J. HIGGINS, Appellant.
Decision Date17 April 1959
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Arthur Karger, New York City, for appellant.

Edward S. Silver, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (William I. Siegal, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

FROESSEL, Judge.

Defendant, a 22-year-old epileptic, was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. He was charged with causing the death, on the night of April 17, 1957, of Patricia Ruland, a girl of 19, by striking her face and head with a hammer at least 19 times while they were seated together in the rear seat of his automobile in the County of Kings.

On his arraignment, he entered a plea of not guilty with a specification of insanity. He sought to establish at the trial that at the time of the homicidal assault on decedent he was in the throes of an epileptic rage or furor attack, and consequently was laboring from such a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong.

Defendant was employed as an oil burner installation and service mechanic. His education consisted of attendance at elementary school, from which he was graduated at the age of 15 1/2, after having been 'left back' several times, and one year of vocational high school. He had an I.Q. of 80, and was described by one of the defense psychiatrists as 'a high grade moron intellectually'.

The facts pertaining to the homicide are in large measure undisputed, and there was no real issue at the trial as to whether defendant had, in fact, committed the homicide. Defendant spent most of the evening in question drinking with friends. He had 15 to 20 beers, either alone or, as he claimed, 'chased' by ryes, had eaten nothing since he had a sandwich at 11:00 A.M., and was feeling 'high', but not drunk. After leaving his friends and returning to his car, he noticed decedent crossing the street and offered her a 'lift' at about 10:25 P.M. He had known her for about two months but had never 'dated' her, and was in fact engaged to be married to another girl.

After decedent entered his car a green Ford belonging to defendant's employer, which defendant was permitted to use they drove to the street on which decedent lived, where they parked, talked and started kissing. About five minutes later they drove further down the same street, parked again, resumed kissing and 'necking', and then went into the back seat, where they continued their lovemaking, and decedent's undergarments were removed.

Defendant gathered that decedent was willing to engage in an act of sexual intercourse with him, whereupon she said 'No, not yet', that she would like to go for some drinks. By his own statement, defendant at about this time picked up a ball-peen hammer which, along with other tools and a small tool box he used in his work, was always kept on the car floor in front of the back seat; he started swinging and struck decedent on the face and head at least 19 times. Defendant thereafter returned to the front seat, drove the car to 94th Street and Marine Avenue, placed decedent on the curb, and then drove home and went to sleep. The next day he placed the hammer in the trunk of the car, deposited in a garbage can decedent's shoes and pocketbook, which, together with the hammer, he had found in the back seat, and purchased a new set of slip covers, which he placed on the back seat the following morning to cover the bloodstains.

Decedent was discovered lying partly on the sidewalk and partly on the street by a passerby at about 11:30 P.M. The latter testified that she saw what appeared to be a green Studebaker making a right turn at the corner. Decedent was wearing a fur coat and a dress and was naked from the waist down. She was lying on her back moaning, moving her arms and legs, but not responding to questions, and was bleeding profusely from the head. She was removed to Coney Island Hospital at about 12:30 A.M., where efforts to save her life proved fruitless, and she died about three hours later. An autopsy was performed on the body and the cause of death was attributed to 'multiple lacerations of the scalp and face and multiple fractures of the skull, with cerebral lacerations and contusions, with hemorrhage'. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy enumerated 19 contusions, lacerations and abrasions, concluding that at least 19 blows were struck and possibly more, since 'one blow could be superimposed upon the other, and make it difficult to distinguish'. There was no evidence of abrasions, contusions or semen around decedent's genitalia.

On Saturday, April 20th, three days after the homicide, two police officers interviewed defendant at his place of business. Defendant gave a strained account of his whereabouts on the night of the slaying, and after the officers discovered bloodstains in the car they took defendant to police headquarters, where, in one oral statement and two question and answer statements, he admitted striking the girl with the hammer and disposing of her body. He was arraigned the following morning in Felony Court.

Defendant took the stand in his own behalf and testified that when decedent said 'No, not yet', he suddenly felt dizzy, experienced a pounding sensation in his head and started shaking. The next thing he remembered was hearing a screeching of brakes and someone yelling at him, and he became aware of the fact that he was driving on the wrong side of the street and had had a near collision with a car approaching from the opposite direction. A few minutes later, when he turned around to see if a car was behind him, he saw decedent in the back seat. He 'didn't know what to do' and 'figured I better take her home or take her some place'. He remembered taking her out of the car and putting her on the curb, but did not remember whether she was breathing, moaning or bleeding at the time.

Defendant further testified that when he found the girl's pocketbook in the car, he remembered that she had been with him the previous evening. He saw the spots on the seats and thought that he must have done something, so he disposed of the pocketbook in a garbage can and bought new seat covers to cover the stains. After hearing the details of the crime on the radio and reading them in the newspapers, he assumed that he had done it and hence initially lied to the police about his whereabouts, etc.

The defense sought to establish that defendant was a chronic epileptic, had suffered several violent 'fits' in recent years, and had delivered the fatal blows while in the throes of another such violent seizure. Several witnesses testified to nine 'fits' which they saw defendant suffer: one in 1952, six in 1953 and two in 1955, while in the Army. All but two or three were preceded by beer or liquor drinking and generally nothing to eat. The two seizures described in greatest detail were suffered in front of a moving picture theatre and at a church dance. One witness described the former as follows: 'Well, we were sitting there on the steps, talking, me and Tommy, and Tommy started shaking. Then he stood up and he started banging wall with his fists. Then he started cracking his head against the wall. And then he fell and was like unconscious, and the police came.' (Emphasis supplied.) When the police arrived he became violent again, picked up one or two of the officers, threw them off and started swinging.

At the church dance, while conversing with a priest, defendant started shaking, fell to the ground, and struck the priest on the shoulder when the latter tried to help him. He was hitting his head and fists against the ground, swinging like a fighter at the people dancing and at anybody in front of him, and kicking and trying to fight off several people who were attempting to hold him down. A policeman handcuffed him to a bannister, but defendant continued swinging and smashed his other hand through a wire-glass window.

The other seven observed seizures occurred at a basketball game, in front of a luncheonette, at a party, twice in his fiancee's home, in his army barracks, and outside a bar in Japan. Defendant's behavior pattern was very similar: he would start shaking and swinging out violently before or after falling to the ground, foam at the mouth, and swing his arms wildly in all directions, striking out at anyone who came near him. On one occasion he struck a friend on the chin, and on another grabbed someone by the shirt and started tightening up on the collar. It would often take several people to hold him down, seven on one occasion. He broke out of a strait jacket during one fit, and out of a clothesline tied around him during another.

The violent stage generally lasted for 15 or 20 minutes or a half hour, and was followed by a period of confusion lasting anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours, during which time he could not be 'reached'. When he came out of this confused state, he sometimes would remember nothing of what had transpired from the onset of the seizure through the period of confusion; at other times he would remember portions of what happened, such as shaking, swinging, passing out or throwing himself on the floor, hitting the floor with his hand, and people holding him down. He often asked what had happened and what he had done, and was provided with the details. He was taken to a hospital after most of these attacks, and both the civilian and military medical records diagnosed most of the seizures as epileptic fits. As the trial court itself stated during the course of the trial, 'I take the liberty of saying that this defendant is an epileptic, according to the record; that is without any doubt'.

Three medical experts testified for the defense: (1) Dr. John H. Taterka, a specialist in neurology and psychiatry. He was head of the epilepsy clinic at Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital, had treated thousands of epileptic cases, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • United States v. Gilligan
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • June 28, 1966
    ... ... of this petition, it might be found as fact that this defendant had such a defense and that insufficient consideration was given to it." People v. Codarre, 10 N. Y.2d 361, 365, 223 N.Y.S.2d 457, 459, 179 N.E.2d 475, 476-477 (1961) ...         At the hearing which followed, the county ...         On the effect of an epileptic attack on criminal responsibility see People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607, 186 N.Y.S.2d 623, 159 N.E.2d 179 (1959) ...         3 See People v. Codarre, 24 Misc.2d 902, 205 N.Y.S.2d 523 (Dutchess ... ...
  • People v. Romero
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2006
    ... ...         For decades, this Court repeatedly referenced Crum as the proper standard to be utilized in addressing weight of the evidence challenges ( see e.g. People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607, 626, 186 N.Y.S.2d 623, 159 N.E.2d 179 [1959]; People v. Williams, 292 N.Y. 297, 300, 55 N.E.2d 37 [1944]). With the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Law in 1970, the Legislature retained the statutory authority for the Appellate Division to review the weight of the evidence in ... ...
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1988
    ... ...         In People v. Martin, 87 Cal.App.2d 581, 197 P.2d 379, 383 (1948), the court said: "[t]he defense of insanity is one thing, and the defense of unconsciousness ... See, e.g., Tibbs v ... Commonwealth, 138 Ky. 558, 128 S.W. 871 (1910); State v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 552, 514 P.2d 603 (1973); People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607, 186 N.Y.S.2d 623, 159 N.E.2d 179 (1959); Cook v. State, 271 So.2d 232 (Fla.App.1973); Starr v. State, 134 Ga.App. 149, 213 S.E.2d ... ...
  • People v. Ciaccio
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • June 14, 1979
    ... ... Williams, 6 N.Y.2d 18, 23, 187 N.Y.S.2d 750, 754, 159 N.E.2d 549, 552; People v. Higgins, 5 N.Y.2d 607, 627-628, 186 N.Y.S.2d 623, 638-639, 159 N.E.2d 179, 189-190; People v. Gradon, 43 A.D.2d 842, 843, 351 N.Y.S.2d 172, 173) ...         Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the conviction vacated and set aside, and a new trial ordered ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Is there an act requirement in the criminal law?
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 142 No. 5, May 1994
    • May 1, 1994
    ...14443(1) ("|Alcoholism' is the state of a person who habitually lacks self-control as to the use of alcoholic beverages ...."). (54) 159 N.E.2d 179 (N.Y. 1959). (55) Id. at 184. (56) The court noted four types of epilepsy recognized by experts: grand mal and petit mal, both involving convul......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT