People v. Rice

• Decision Date: 06 June 1899
• Citation: 159 N.Y. 400,54 N.E. 48
• Parties: PEOPLE v. RICE.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

159 N.Y. 400

54 N.E. 48

PEOPLE

v.RICE.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 6, 1899.

Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Chautauqua county.

Oscar E. Rice was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur B. Ottaway, for appellant.

Eleazer Green and H. C. Kingsbury, for the People.

PARKER, C. J.

Shortly after 3 o'clock in the afternoon of the 25th day of March, 1898, this defendant stabbed his wife, Mary Rice, with a knife, several times, inflicting such wounds that she died immediately after the stabbing was ended. The details of the butchery, for it was nothing else, need not be given, for the killing, and the manner of it, are not in controversy. Several persons saw the defendant stab his wife, and testified to that effect. The evidence introduced tending to show motive was to the effect that the defendant had had difficulty with his wife, which resulted in their living apart from each other, and that he was jealous of a man by the name of Marlowe. A letter that he received from her on the morning of the day of the homicide was introduced in evidence, and reads as follows: ‘Westfield, N. Y., March 24, '98. Dear Orrie: Your letter received. I can tell you right here that I don't get much time to write, and as for my living in Mayville, I have no use for that town. I have lived in a one-horse town last year, and that is enough for me. You need not rent any house for me. I am all right here. If you can't get work in Jamestown, you certainly cannot do anything in Mayville. You said last summer that you would not live there. Now what are you thinking of? You had better go and work on a farm if you can't find anything better; work by the month. I would not live in Mayville if you would give me a house. I am not coming over there, either. You have said enough last year about my being there. I don't have to go now. If you want to live there, you can. Don't trouble about me. I thank you for the ribbon. I cannot wear it. It is too gay; but will tie it on my chair. Give my love to Ad and Gertie. I [159 N.Y. 404]am going to sell that heater the first chance I have, and settle up with Chapman, and have that done with; then the stove won't get all rust this summer. Where is Horace? Do you hear from him? Write again. With love, from Mate.’

For the purpose of establishing that the killing was committed with a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, the people proved, in addition to certain facts and circumstances, to which reference will be briefly made, conversations with the defendant on the morning of the day of the killing. That the importance of this testimony may be readily appreciated, our attention should first be directed to the geographical situation. Mrs. Rice was at Westfield, serving a family in the capacity of nurse, while the defendant was at Mayville, occasionally at work, the two places being seven miles apart. Samuel T. Hiller testified that on the morning of the day of the homicide the defendant came to him at about half past 10, and said: “Sam, I came down to bid you good-bye. I may never see you again alive. I am going away. I am going to the city. I have got discouraged living this way, and am on a toot, and I am going to do myself up. You keep that gun, because I have got an easier way.' I asked him if he was going to Buffalo, and he said: ‘No, I am going to Oil City. I think it very strange a fellow have a wife, and she won't come to take care of him when he is crippled up as bad as I was when I got hurt at the ice house, and couldn't help myself. * * *” Ira Honneyset testified: ‘I saw him between nine and ten o'clock on March 25th. I went into the Mayville House with him, and had a glass of beer. We were in twice that day. Kessel or Huttenbacker waited on us. I saw him again, I think, between eleven and twelve o'clock, near the post office or bank. He told me that he had got tired of living, and before he would live that way he would go over there and kill his wife and kill himself. We talked some time, and I told him that was a foolish thing for him to do. We went to the CentralHotel to see Mr. Fisher. Mr. Rice went out when I was talking with Mr. Fisher, and came back again, and asked me to go with him, and read a letter. I read the letter to him. It was signed ‘Rice.’ I don't remember the first name. He said it was from his wife. He said he had just got it when I met him. He said he had been telephoning to her, and hadn't got any answer directly from her.' Counsel presents letter to witness. Witness states: ‘It looks like the same. The contents are the same.’ The letter that Honneyset testified he read to the defendant, and that was signed ‘Rice,’ was the letter that is quoted supra. It was received at the post office at Mayville at 9 o'clock that morning, and, according to the testimony of the postmaster, was very shortly afterwards delivered to the defendant, so that the time of delivery corresponds with the testimony of Honneyset as to the time the defendant brought the letter to him to read. An uncle of the defendant by marriage testified that he ‘met the defendant down by Thomase's store pretty near eleven. I asked him where he was going. He said he was going to Westfield. I asked him what he was going down there for. He said he was going down there to see his wife; to see what she was going to do. I noticed that he was very nervous. He did not keep still. He was on the move all the time. His eyes were glassy. I asked him when he would be back. He said if his wife didn't do something, why, six feet of ground would be all right for him.’ Thus it was shown that more than five hours before the homicide the defendant told an acquaintance that, unless there was to be a change in their relations, he would kill his wife and take his own life. After that number of hours had passed away, during which the defendant had traveled from Mayville to Westfield, and had had a short interview with his wife, he did to her precisely as he had threatened, and as to himself he made the attempt by cutting his own throat.

It is apparent from the brief reference we have made to the testimony that the jury were fully justified in finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, unless at the time he did not know and understand the nature and quality of the act he was committing, and therefore did not appreciate that he was doing a wrong. This was the defense the learned counsel for the defendant, with great ability, pressed upon the attention of the court any jury throughout the trial. In that direction alone does the evidence introduced on the part of the defendant tend. Relatives and others were called to show epilepsy in the defendant's family, and that his mother was afflicted with the disease during the period of gestaton, as well as before and after it. Witnesses were also called who described the defendant's condition on two occasions when he was seized with what they called ‘fits,’ and it was claimed for these seizures that they tended to show, at least, that epilepsy had at last secured a firm hold upon the defendant. The appearance and actions of the defendant during these seizures, as described by the witnesses who saw him, were subsequently brought to the attention of Dr. Crego, an insanity expert of large experience, who testified that the so-called ‘fits' were not epileptic seizures, and, further, that the defendant was not a victim of epilepsy. He made a careful examination of the defendant in the presence of Drs. Hazeltine and Schofield, who were in accord with Dr. Crego in the opinion that the defendant was sane. No good purpose can be accomplished by a review of the testimony offered by the defendant in support of his defense that his mental condition at the time of the killing was such that he was not legally responsible for his acts, nor, on the other hand, of the testimony introduced by the district attorney for the purpose of establishing that the defendant was perfectly sane, and full well understood the nature of the act that he committed. It is sufficient to say that the evidence presented a question for the jury to pass upon, and the learned trial justice submitted that question, as he did all others in the case, to them for their consideration, with great clearness and perfect fairness. The result was...