Raines v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1863
• Citation: 33 Ga. 571
• Parties: Richard Raines, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

33 Ga. 571

Richard Raines, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JULY TERM, 1863.

Murder, in Washington Superior Court. Tried before Judge Iverson L. Harris, at March Term, 1863.

This was an indictment charging the defendant, Richard Raines, with the murder of his wife, Emily S. Raines, on the 27th of June, 1861, by mixing strychnine with whisky, and administering it to her, whereof she died in a short time thereafter. The indictment was found true by the grand jury at September Term, 1861, and the defendant was put on trial at March Term, 1863.

The material facts and circumstances of the case as developed by the testimony on the trial, are as follows, to-wit:

On the morning of the 27th of June, 1861, the defendant gave to each of his children a drink of spirituous liquor; he also prepared a drink for his wife, and sent it to her by one of his little daughters; Mrs. Raines drank a portion of it, and immediately asked her little son, who was standing by, if what he drank was bitter; being answered by the little boy in the negative, she remarked that what she drank was bitter; a daughter of the defendant, who was fifteen years of age at the time of the trial, testified that the defendant poured the drinks of the children from one bottle, and the drink of Mrs. Raines from another and a different bottle; after drinking the liquor the family sat down to breakfast, and Mrs. Raines ate some biscuit and butter, and drank some coffee; before she arose from the breakfast table she complained of a burning in her stomach, and shortly afterwards was attacked with spasms; a neighbor woman, near by, was sent for, and when she arrived, Mrs. Raines was insensible; the defendanthad bled her in the arm, and was holding it to stop the blood when the neighbor lady arrived.

Mrs. Raines was pregnant at the time, and was within about one mouth of the time of delivery; she seemed like a woman in labor; her head was drawn back, she gritted her teeth, her limbs jerked and she had three pains, struggles, or spasms, and died; her eyes were turned back, her lips turned purple and her face was palid; a few days before Mrs. Raines death a physician had visited the house and left some tartar-emetic for some dogs, this was given by Mrs. Raines to several of the dogs, and one of them died; a Coroner's inquest was held over the body of deceased the day after she died, and at the house of defendant; the stomach was taken from the body and placed in a pan, and the defendant sat, or stood by, and witnessed the post mortem examination; the pan with its contents was left in the house on a table, and the physicians went out into the yard where the inquest was being held; in a short time it was suggested by one of the physicians that as no directions had been given as to the pan with the stomach in it, it had better be looked after, but when they went back into the house to look for it, the pan was gone; the stomach was afterwards found buried in a field some hundred and fifty yards from the house, but the testimony did not disclose by what agency it was taken from the house and buried in the field; it was disinterred and placed in an earthen jar, and kept by one of the physicians; the contents of the stomach were afterwards carried by Dr. James R. Smith to the city of Augusta, who with Dr. Louis D. Ford and Son, subjected it to chemical examination and analysis. The physicians were of opinion that Mrs. Raines most probably came to her death from poisoning by strychnia, but their minds were not clear on that point, the testimony, as well as their examination of the stomach and its contents, not being of such a character as to relieve them of doubt; the tests applied were unsatisfactory to the physicians. Dr. Smith testified that the color tests did not fully satisfy his mind of the presence of strychnia in the stomach; two of the experiments exhibited the peculiar colors which are said by scienti-fic works to prove the presence of strychnia, the other experiments were unsatisfactory not proving to his mind the existence of the poison, nor producing the effects to be expected from them. Dr. Louis D. Ford testified, that the chemical experiments carried no further than the color tests, were not satisfactory; only one of the tests with sulphuric acid, and bichromate of potass, and a part of one of the preparations, produced the highly characteristic color induced by strychnia; those are not the only tests known to science by which strychnine might be detected; there are other tests which if applied might yield more satisfactory results, even to the reproduction of strychnine in a crystallized state, but such tests were not applied; strychnine may be reproduced in the hands of an expert manipulator in a very small quantity; he made other experiments from preparations obtained from the stomach, upon frogs, and all the experiments taken together induced witness to the opinion that there was probably strychnia in the substance examined, but a neglect to carry the chemical examination further, to the reproduction of strychnia, prevented the witness from having the opinion that there was positively strychnia in the stomach; he did not think there was any other poison except strychnia in the stomach, nor did the experiments lead him to suspect the presence of any other; he did not wish to be understood as saying, that if he had carried the experiments further, he would have found strychnia in the stomach, for that was entirely beyond his knowledge; it was also proved by defendant\'s daughter hereinbefore alluded to, that the defendant and his wife had been living disagreeably for some time before the death of deceased, and that defendant once threw a smoothing iron at deceased and twice threatened her life.

Pending the examination of Dr. Smith, the following question was propounded to him by the State's Attorney: " Did Mrs. Raines die a natural death, or did she die from the effects of poison, judging from your post mortem examination, and your analysis of the stomach and its contents, and from the testimony of the witnesses as heard by you in this case; your opinion as a medical man is asked."

Said question was objected to by prisoner\'s counsel, when the Court intimated to the Attorney General to change his question to the following form: "Whether, from the testimony in the case and his (your) examination as a medical man, of the stomach and its contents, what is your opinion as an expert as to the cause of the death of Mrs. Raines, whether it was the result of natural cause, or of poison."

Prisoner's counsel excepted to the interference by the Court with the conduct of the case, and in suggesting a new form of question to the Attorney General, and this interference was assigned as error.

Defendant's counsel also objected to the question itself, when said question was withdrawn temporarily. Dr. Smith having been withdrawn, was recalled by the State, and the same question, that is, the question framed by the Court, upon his recall was re-propounded to him, and objected to by prisoner's counsel; the Court refused to admit said question to be put to the witness, but wrote out the following form for the use of the Attorney General: " From the symptoms described by the witnesses in this case, and which you have heard testified to, in connexion with the analysis of the stomach of Mrs. Raines and its contents, upon the post mortem examination thereof, as a medical expert, what is your opinion as to whether her death was produced by natural causes or by poison?"

Counsel for the prisoner objected to the Court's interference again with the State's Attorney in framing said question for him, and objected to the question itself, which objection the Court overruled,...