State v. Brazzell

• Decision Date: 19 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 30119.,30119.
• Citation: 150 N.W. 683,168 Iowa 480
• Parties: STATE v. BRAZZELL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

168 Iowa 480

150 N.W. 683

STATE

v.BRAZZELL.

No. 30119.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 19, 1915.

Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; J. W. Kinzinger, Judge.

The defendant was indicted upon a charge of murder in the first degree, and found guilty of murder in the second degree. Her motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial having been denied, she appeals. Reversed. The material facts are stated in the opinion.

Weaver, J., dissenting in part.Fitzpatrick & Frantzen, of Dubuque, for appellant.

George Cosson, Atty. Gen., and Wiley S. Rankin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WEAVER, J.

The appellant is charged with the murder of her husband, Charles Brazzell, at their home in the city of Dubuque, on the evening of January 19, 1914. There were no eyewitnesses of the alleged crime, and the principal circumstances relied upon by the state to sustain the conviction are indicated in the further progress of this opinion. At the time in question the parties had been married about eight years. Appellant had been previously married, and was by that marriage the mother of two children, a daughter and son. The daughter, having graduated from high school, and later from the State University, was engaged in teaching at Forest City. During the years after she left her mother to attend school, and up to the death of Brazzell, she returned to the family home from time to time for her vacations. The son also had gone out for himself. So far as shown, the relations between deceased and his stepchildren were reasonably amicable, and the daughter says that, as far as she had known, the appellant and deceased lived in harmony. It appears, however, that prior to the alleged killing word had come to the appellant of improper and questionable relations between her husband and other women; that her jealousy was to some extent aroused; and that she had frequently complained of his conduct in that respect. On Saturday evening, January 17, 1914, it is said she followed her husband to the home of another woman, where a scene ensued in which he struck appellant, and she sought the police to have him and the woman arrested, but no arrests were made. She requested the police to keep an eye on her home that night, expressing a fear that on his return Brazzell might make her trouble. A policeman complied with her request, but heard no disturbance about the premises. Deceased did not work on Monday, January 19th, and whether he worked on the preceding day, Sunday, the 18th, is not clear from the record. The house stands in close proximity to the residences of several neighbors, none of whom, so far as the testimony goes, saw anything or heard any noise suggestive of quarrel or strife between the parties on either Sunday or Monday. On Saturday evening, January 17th, the appellant's daughter at Forest City wrote to her mother saying, among other things, that while she was still busy with her regular work, she was in ill health, and contemplated taking medical treatment, and expressed a wish that her mother would make her a visit. The letter, which, with the inclosing envelope, is in evidence, appears to have been mailed at Forest City at 7:30 p. m., and addressed to the appellant at her proper street number in Dubuque. It was delivered to appellant on Monday morning, January 19th. Later in the forenoon appellant went to a neighboring coal office and ordered a load of coal to be delivered at the home. On the same trip she called upon the wife of a near neighbor. In the course of their conversation she related the fact of the trouble with her husband on the preceding Saturday evening, but said they had made up and forgiven each other. At the same time she told of receiving the letter from her daughter, and that she was going to Forest City to see her. At 6 o'clock in the evening she appeared again at the home of the same neighbor, bringing her canary bird, asking that it be kept for her during her absence, and saying she intended to take the evening train for Forest City. She further said her husband was willing she should go, and had given her $9 for that purpose, but added that she did not know what “Charley might have up his sleeve,” and asked them to keep an eye on the premises. After visiting some 10 to 15 minutes, appellant returned to her home, and about a quarter to 8 o'clock called at another neighbor's dressed and prepared for departure upon her trip to Forest City. She carried a suit case and a small package of lunch. While waiting she opened the suit case in the presence of her neighbor and put into it some fruit which one of the household was sending to her daughter. A little while before 9 o'clock she went out, accompanied as far as the street by the neighbor, who saw her take the street car going in the direction of the railway station, from which she took the train in the direction of Forest City at about 9:30 p. m. The woman upon whom the last call was made testifies that appellant appeared natural and cheerful in manner, and betrayed no nervousness.

Her route was over the Illinois Central Railway to Iowa Falls, where she waited several hours between trains; thence to Forest City over the Rock Island Railway, arriving at her destination about 10 o'clock a. m. Of what took place at Forest City we will speak later, it being enough at this point to say that she remained there with her daughter until Friday evening January 23d, when she returned to Dubuque, taking the same route above described, and reaching home about 6 o'clock of the afternoon of January 24th. Leaving the street car, she walked to her home. As she entered the gate she was seen by two of the neighboring women already mentioned, who, after a few words of greeting, proposed to make her a cup of coffee, and appellant responded that she would go into the house, and, if Charley was not at home, or there was nothing ready, she would accept the invitation. The witnesses saw her approach her own door, and they passed on to their own home. Appellant appears to have entered the house through a front door opening into a room known as the parlor. Circumstances indicate that she there set down her suit case, lighted a gas jet, removed her hat, and laid it on the piano. The women who had invited her to refreshments say that within a minute or two after they entered their rooms they were followed by appellant apparently greatly excited, moaning and wringing her hands, and exclaiming: “Charley is dead! Charley is dead!”

Before taking up subsequent developments it may be well at this point to note what is shown as to the last which was seen of Charles Brazzell prior to the discovery of his dead body as just related. We have already said that he laid off from his regular employment that day, but how he employed his time does not fully appear. The state's witness Ball, who knew deceased, and was a fellow motorman on the street railway, testifies definitely to meeting and speaking with him on one of the streets of Dubuque at about a quarter to 6 on the evening of January 19th, from which point deceased moved in the directionof his home. Another state's witness met him earlier in the day. It would seem certain therefore that if deceased was murdered at his home on the date in question it must have been at some time later than the hour of 6 in the afternoon. Other state's witnesses living in the vicinity never saw him in life after the occasions above mentioned. There is evidence however tending to show that Brazzell was alive after Monday, the 19th of January. One Wm. Hos, a member of the family on whom appellant called just before leaving for Forest City, and a witness for the state, testifies that he saw a light in the dining room and parlor of the Brazzell house for a considerable time on Tuesday evening. Mary Hos says that she saw the light there on Tuesday evening. Louis Hos, living in another house near at hand, swears he saw the light, and, to the best of his memory, it was Tuesday night. One Duertscher, a grocer, testifying for the state, says appellant and her husband traded with him, and that two purchases were made from him by the family on the week of January 19th, that one was made on Monday and the other later in the week, and of this he says that he is “positively certain,” but he is unable to say by whom this purchase was made. One Wundershied swears he saw a man dressed in the uniform of the street railway sweeping snow from the porch of the Brazzell house on Tuesday afternoon. Fred Lillie, brother-in-law of the appellant, swears he saw deceased alive on the street in Dubuque late in the afternoon of Tuesday, that he saw him clearly, and he was walking in the direction of his home. The state's witness Ball, who, as we have seen, says that he met deceased a little before 6 o'clock p. m. on Monday the 19th, also says that he noticed that Brazzell was shaved, and the coroner who took charge of the body after it was found says the face showed a short growth of beard, possibly the thirty-second of an inch. Strangely enough there is no evidence upon the subject whether he appeared for work on Tuesday.

Resuming now the main thread of the story at the point where appellant made the outcry that her husband was dead, it appears that the alarm was at once given, and many persons from that vicinity were soon at the Brazzell home. As is usually the case, under such exciting circumstances, these witnesses differ somewhat concerning the details of the situation thus revealed, but there is substantial agreement upon most of the following matters: The ground floor of the house is divided into four rooms, parlor, dining room, bedroom, and kitchen. The parlor and dining room are in the front part, each having an outside entrance and one or more windows on the street. The kitchen extends across the back part of the house. Back of the parlor is a bedroom, and between the bedroom and kitchen a steep flight of stairs 2 feet 4 inches wide affords access to the...