State v. Bradley

• Decision Date: 10 January 1895
• Citation: 32 A. 238,67 Vt. 465
• Parties: STATE v. BRADLEY.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

32 A. 238

67 Vt. 465

STATE

v. BRADLEY.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Bennington.

Jan. 10, 1895.

Exceptions from Bennington county court; Munson, Judge.

Jerry Bradley was convicted of murder in the second degree, and excepts. Exceptions overruled.

The respondent was indicted for the murder of one Maggie Shea. It appeared that the deceased, a married woman, living separate from her husband, had kept house for the respondent, a married man, not living with his wife, for some years before her death. The homicide occurred on the afternoon of Tuesday, at the house of one Dillworth, where the deceased had gone the evening of the Sunday previous. The evidence tended to show that at the time of the homicide there were present in the house Thomas White. Joseph Lyons, John Bolger, and the respondent; that the other three had been there most of the time since Sunday night; that on Monday afternoon White had gone to the house of the respondent, and persuaded him to come to the Dillworth house for the purpose of settling up his differences with the Shea woman, and taking her home; that the respondent had gone to the Dillworth house at that time, and that they had all remained there from then on, drinking heavily; that at the time of the homicide the deceased was lying upon the bed in a bedroom opening out of the room in which were Bolger and the respondent; and that the respondent got up and went into the bedroom where she was. Bolger testified that he heard the deceased talking with him at that time; heard him ask her whether she was going back to live with him; heard her refuse to do so; heard her call him names; beard him accuse her of sexual intimacy with Dillworth and White, and threaten to murder her; then heard a rustling noise; heard her tell him to get off from her; heard a shriek, followed by a moan and a gasp, after which the respondent called to him that Mag was dead, and asked him to come in; that the respondent said, soon after coming out from the room, that she died of heart disease, which statement he repeated to several persons at different times after her death, claiming that she had long been troubled with that difficulty. An autopsy showed that the deceased had apparently met her death from a stab in the left breast, which was about one-half inch wide and two inches and a half deep, and which the testimony tended to show might have been inflicted by the knife which was found upon the person of the respondent upon the day of the homicide, after his arrest.

Upon the trial the respondent took the following exceptions to the admission of evidence: Dr. Nichols testified that he arrived at the Dillworth house some four hours after the death, and made an examination of the deceased. He produced a knife which the testimony tended to show was taken from the respondent that day, after the homicide. There appeared to be upon the blade of the knife a slight discoloration. Upon this subject the following testimony was admitted, subject to the exception of the respondent: "Q. Did you make such an examination of that knife at that time as to be able to form any opinion as to how that discoloration was caused? A. We did. Q. Doctor, you can state what your opinion is as to the cause of that discoloration. A. We thought it was stained with blood, and I preserved the knife, and kept it from being handled; so if the question came up later, and it was necessary to make a more thorough examination, we could do it it was not called for, and consequently we didn't do it. I didn't allow the knife to be handled, and kept it under lock and key. That is the facts of the case. Q. Did you think it was stained with blood? A. Yes, sir." Respondent especially excepted to the form of the answer in stating, "We thought," in the former answer; whereupon the witness said, "I thought it was." The witness testified that he had been a practicing physician for 14 years. The state was allowed to show, subject to the exception of the respondent, that on the Sunday night before the murder the respondent met the deceased and another woman at some distance from the Dillworth house, driving his team; that thereupon the respondent told the other woman to get out of the wagon, got in himself, and endeavored to persuade the deceased to return home with him, whereupon the deceased sprang out of the wagon, and started towards Dillworth's; that the respondent shortly afterwards followed her, presently came up with her, used threatening and insulting language to her, knocked her down, took her by the hair of the head, and swung her around, and assaulted her companion. The state was also permitted to show, subject to the exception of the respondent, that, some three years before the homicide, the witness had heard the respondent threaten to kill the deceased if she left him and went away with any one else. Soon after the homicide, the respondent and Bolger were both arrested upon the charge of having been implicated in it While under arrest at the Dillworth house, and immediately following, certain conversations took place between them in reference to the affair which tended to inculpate the respondent, and these conversations the state was allowed to show under the exception of the respondent. The respondent was first tried at the June term of Bennington county court 1890, and found guilty of murder in the second degree. Thereupon he alleged exceptions to the supreme court, which were sustained, and the case remanded for a new trial. 24 Atl. 1053. The plaintiff insisted that upon the present trial he could only be convicted of murder in the second degree, and requested the court to so instruct the jury. This the court declined to do, and instructed the jury that they might find the respondent guilty of murder in the first degree, to which the respondent excepted. One of the assistant judges had participated as a juror in the previous trial, and for this reason declined to sit upon this trial, to which the respondent excepted. The exceptions taken by the respondent to the charge of the court appear in the opinion.

F. C. Archibald. State's Atty., and J. K. Batchelder, for the State.

W. B. Sheldon, for respondent.

ROWELL, J. The deceased was killed by a stab in the breast. The testimony tended to show that it might have been made with a knife taken from the prisoner after his arrest on the day of the homicide. The state called a physician of 14 years' practice, who produced said knife, and testified that, when it came into his possession, he examined it with a glass, and that there seemed to be a stain of a reddish color on the blade. He was then asked, subject to exception, to give his opinion as to the cause of the stain. He answered, "We thought it was stained with blood." The prisoner's counsel...