State v. Allen.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 2448.,2448. |
| Citation | 187 P. 559,25 N.M. 682 |
| Parties | STATEv.ALLEN. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Where motive is sought to be shown circumstantially, the circumstances shown must bear such relation to the facts as to be capable of creating the given state of mind of the defendant which is sought to be established. If they could not operate upon the mind of the defendant, they lack relevancy and are inadmissible.
Appeal from District Court, Union County; Leib, Judge.
Edgar Allen was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Where, in a murder trial, motive is sought to be shown circumstantially, the circumstances shown must bear such relation to the facts as to be capable of creating the given state of mind of defendant which is sought to be established, and, if they could not operate upon the mind of defendant, they lack relevancy and are inadmissible.
O. P. Easterwood, of Clayton, for appellant.
O. O. Askren, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. The facts were that Louis Moore, the deceased, and Caroline Moore, his wife, and mother of the defendant, lived on a farm about four miles south and east of Grenville, Union county, N. M., and that the defendant, who was then living at Duncan, Okl., on the invitation of the deceased, came out to New Mexico about 10 days before the death of the deceased for the purpose of assisting him with his crops; that the defendant worked on different farms until the deceased could get ready to thresh his crop; that on the morning of the homicide the defendant and the deceased went out to fix a fence and drive up some mules; that as the defendant started out that morning he took an old shotgun, having no guard over the trigger, and with it killed two rabbits which he hung along the fence that he and the deceased were to fix; that, according to defendant's testimony, the only eyewitness, after the defendant had found the place in the fence which was to be fixed, and after he had killed the two rabbits, the deceased rode up on a horse, from which he dismounted and commenced fixing the fence; that the horse started to walk away, and the defendant got the horse, and while leading him back, and on account of the horse jerking, the gun was caught in some way in the defendant's clothing and went off and shot the deceased in the back of the head and neck; that the defendant immediately ran over to the deceased, pulled him away from the fence, got on the horse, and went by his mother's place and on to Grenville for a doctor, after first stopping and reporting the accident to two or three neighbors and getting their advice as to the best thing to do.
While the defendant was at Grenville endeavoring to secure the services of a physician, he was arrested, and there were threats to burn and lynch him. The defendant was taken back to the scene of the homicide, and in the presence of various armed onlookers was compelled to demonstrate just how the shooting had taken place. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial