State v. Burns

• Decision Date: 12 May 1904
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. JAMES BURNS, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 N.W. 721

124 Iowa 207

STATE OF IOWA v. JAMES BURNS, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 12, 1904

Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. JOSIAH GIVEN, Judge.

THE defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. There was a judgment on the verdict, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Spurrier Forbes & Mills, for appellant.

Chas W. Mullan, Attorney General, Lawrence De Graff, Assistant Attorney General, Jesse A. Miller, County Attorney, and Robert O. Brennan, Assistant County Attorney, for the State.

OPINION

SHERWIN, J.

The defendant, James Burns, John BaTiese, Carrie BaTiese and George Beveridge were jointly indicted for the murder of Jerry Corcoran on the 20th day of December, 1902. John and Carrie BaTiese were husband and wife, living at that time in East Des Moines. The defendant, Burns, was also a resident of Des Moines, rooming in the BaTiese house, which was of questionable character. George Beveridge and the deceased Jerry Corcoran, were laborers engaged in railroad work north of Des Moines a few miles. There was no acquaintance between them, but both came to Des Moines on the same car in the forenoon of the 20th day of December. There was also evidence tending to show that the two were together in a saloon between three and four o'clock in the afternoon of that day. About six o'clock in the evening the defendant, Burns, and Beveridge met on the street near the BaTiese house. Corcoran came along, was addressed by the defendant, Burns, and after a little talk Burns suggested that the three go to the BaTiese house and drink beer. They all went to the house, and had some beer as suggested. After they had taken some, the defendant, Burns, asked Mrs. BaTiese for morphine, and, upon being told that she had none, he went out, and soon thereafter returned with a bottle which he stated contained the drug. He opened the bottle, took some of its contents himself, and gave some to Beveridge. A little later he put three or four crystals of its contents into a teacup, and filled the cup with beer, and this beer Corcoran drank. There was evidence tending to show that the cup was one from which Corcoran had been drinking before this, but whether it was handed to him by the defendant, Burns, after the morphine had been put therein, or was placed on the table so that he got it, is not made clear by the record. There was also evidence tending to show that the drug was put into the cup in a room other than the one in which the deceased was, but, however this may have been, the evidence clearly shows that Corcoran was drunk at the time, and entirely fails to show that he was a user of the poison, or that he knew that any of it had been put into the beer that he drank. Soon thereafter Corcoran became unconscious, and BaTiese requested that he be taken from his house, whereupon the defendant, Burns, and Beveridge carried him out of the house through the back door, and to an old shed near the rear of the house, where he was found dead the next morning, having died from the effects of the morphine taken. When Beveridge and Burns left him in the shed, or near thereto, they repaired to a nearby saloon, where, after a hurried whispered conversation with the bartender, Burns left Beveridge and went out, stating that he would soon be back, and requesting Beveridge to wait for him. This Beveridge did, and when Burns returned he had a check for about $ 40, which had been issued to Corcoran. Burns tried to have it cashed in the saloon where they then were, but failed, and thereupon he and Beveridge left there and visited several other places, where he introduced Beveridge as Corcoran, and where they tried without success to get cash on the check. Burns claimed before the trial that he had found the check on the walk in front of the BaTiese house, but there was evidence tending to prove that he had taken the same from Corcoran's pocket after the latter had been taken to the shed.

The indictment was returned on the 13th day of January, 1903, and Burns was arraigned on the same day, appearing with the counsel who still represent him. On the 24th day of January he pleaded not guilty to the charge, and demanded a separate trial, which was granted, and, the State electing to first try him, the trial was assigned for the 19th day of February. On the latter date the defendant asked a continuance because of the absence of witnesses whom he claimed would testify to matters material to his defense. The case was continued, and the statement made by the court that it would be put into the first assignment for the March term unless cause was shown why it should be otherwise. On the 2nd of March it was assigned for trial on the 17th of the same month. On the 16th day of March the defendant Burns again moved for a continuance of the case because of the absence of the same witnesses, Yelton, Gobel, and Connors, and upon practically the...