State v. Catellier

Decision Date07 April 1947
Docket Number2346
PartiesTHE STATE OF WYOMING, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS A. CATELLIER, Defendant and Appellant
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

APPEAL from District Court, Laramie County; SAM M. THOMPSON, Judge.

Louis A. Catellier was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

For the defendant and appellant, the cause was submitted upon the brief and also oral argument of Vincent Mulvaney of Cheyenne Wyoming.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT

To be sufficient an indictment or affidavit for involuntary manslaughter in the commission of an act made unlawful by statute must state facts from which it will affirmatively appear that the act done was a violation of the law, and that such unlawful act was a proximate cause of the death of a human being which resulted therefrom. Kimmel v. State (Ind.), 154 N.E. 16; State v. Whitney, 102 P 288 (Ore.); Eaton v. State (Ind.) 70 N.E. 814; State v. Schaffer (Ohio) 117 N.E. 220.

The court erred in admitting in evidence in the state's case in chief the testimony of defendant given at the coroner's inquest, over the objection of defendant.

Maki v State (Wyo.) 112 P. 334; State v. Poach, 257 N.W. 113 (3-6); State v. Naughton, 120 S.W. 53, 64; Hearing before Joint Committee, 196 S.E. 164; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 35 L.E. 1110.

Where the cause and manner of death are left in doubt, and become subject to proof, every sort of relevant evidence should be admitted. 26 A. J. 370 Para. 320. When the court attempted to instruct the jury on the subject of negligence, the instruction should have been so framed as to advise the jury as to the kind of negligence characterized as "criminal". People v. Driggs (Cal.) 295 P. 51, 53.

Justice to the defendant demanded that the jury should have been clearly informed that culpability under the manslaughter statute necessarily implied something more than lack of precaution, which is sufficient as a basis for liability in a civil action for damages. People v. Pace, 221 N.Y.S. 778.

The unlawful act relied on in manslaughter, must, if it consists of negligence, be more than ordinary negligence, and must be culpable or criminal in its nature. State v. McComb, 33 Wyo. 346, 293 P. 526, 41 A. L. R. 717.

To make an act carelessly performed resulting in death a criminal one, the carelessness must have been gross, implying an indifference to consequences; and the term gross negligence means something more than mere negligence. It means wantonness and disregard of the consequences which may ensue, and indifference to the rights of others that is equivalent to a criminal intent. People v. Barnes, 182 Mich. 179, 148 N.W. 400.

To constitute the crime of manslaughter, there must be such legal relation between the commission of the unlawful act and the homicide, that it logically follows that the homicide occurred as a concomitant part of the perpetration of, or in furtherance of an attempt to commit, the unlawful act. Therefore it follows that death must be the natural result and the probable consequence of the commission of the unlawful act upon which the homicide is based. Potter v. State (1903) 162 Ind. 213, 70 N.E. 129, 64 L. R. A. 942; Votre v. State, 138 N.E. 257; Wharton on Homicide 684, 29 C. J. 1150.

The mere fact that the patient has died under the anesthetic does not show negligence. 12 A. L. R. 1494, 41 A. J. 212.

The general rule in criminal cases is that where the evidence is circumstantial, the facts shown must not only be consistent with and point to the guilt of the defendant, but must be inconsistent with this innocence. Where the evidence only raises a mere suspicion of the guilt of the defendant, it is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Suspicion is not proof; and the court should direct a verdict of acquittal. Sies v. State, 6 Okl.Cr. 142, 117 P. 504; Yaggle v. Allen, 48 N.Y.S. 827; Ramberg v. Morgan, 218 N.W. 492, 97, 98; Saylor v. Commonwealth, 166 S.W. 254; People v. Scharf (N. Y.) 111 N.E. 758, 760.

For the plaintiff and respondent, the cause was submitted upon the brief of Louis J. O'Marr, Attorney General, Hal E. Morris, Deputy Attorney General, and Frank M. Gallivan, Assistant Attorney General, all of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and oral argument by Mr. Morris.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

An indictment is valid which follows a prescribed statutory form or a form prescribed by a valid rule of court, and has been held not to violate the constitutional right of accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 40 C. J. S. 1030.

The admissibility in evidence of extrajudicial admissions, confessions, declarations, etc., of the accused is well established, and if like statements are made by the accused as a witness at a preliminary hearing, at a coroner's inquest, before the grand jury, or at a former trial, voluntarily, and under such circumstances that he is not deprived of his constitutional right against self-incrimination, his testimony may be reproduced. Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Volume 2, Section 676, at page 1124.

Admissions against interest or actions indicative of guilt are always competent as evidence against a party accused of crime. Dickerson v. State, 18 Wyo. 440.

Before experts testify their knowledge and experience should ordinarily be inquired into so that the court may determine their competency. The range of such examination, and the question of the admissibility of such testimony, is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. A non-expert may express an opinion on those things with which he is acquainted after a satisfactory statement of facts upon which he bases his opinion. Where a witness disclaims being an expert, it is not conclusive on the court in the determination of the question. Actual experience is not necessary to qualify as an expert, but actual knowledge is necessary so to qualify. Experts may be qualified by experience rather than study or by study rather than experience. Objection to expert witness on the ground of lack of knowledge goes to the weight rather than to the admissibility of the testimony. The test in determining the qualifications of an expert is whether his knowledge may aid the jury. Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 4th Edition, at page 440. 20 A. J. 656.

It is well established that communications by telephone are admissible in evidence where otherwise relevant to the fact or facts in issue, provided the identity of the person with whom the witness spoke or the person whom he heard speak is satisfactorily established. 20 A. J. 33. 71 A. L. R. 5; 105 A. L. R. 362; 31 C. J. S. 908.

In the absence of statute the order relative to exclusion of witnesses is not of right; but it is seldom refused if it appears that the ascertainment of truth will be advanced. The matter, however, is wholly one of judicial discretion and neither side can claim it as matter of right. Hence, the refusal of the court to exclude all the witnesses for the prosecution except the witness who is testifying is not reversible error which will entitle the accused to a new trial upon his conviction. The refusal to exclude any witness is within the discretion of the court. Underhill's Criminal Evidence, page 821, Sec. 404.

A physician may state his diagnosis of a disease, as of bodily, mental, or nervous symptoms; the ocurrence of a change; the stage of development of a disease; the proper treatment to be administered, and the probable effect of a lack thereof; or whether certain treatment was proper, necessary or sanctioned by medical usage. 22 C. J. 662.

As a general rule, counsel in framing questions to be asked an expert, or skilled witness testifying on behalf of his client, may use medical or other scientific books and include extracts therefrom in the questions asked. 32 C. J. S. 427.

A person testifying as an expert may give an opinion founded only upon his reading and study. He cannot, however, be permitted to read as independent proof extracts from books in his department, though he may refresh his memory when giving the conclusions arrived at in his specialty by turning to standard works. But unless an expert in his examination or cross-examination cites particular scientific works, such works cannot be afterwards put in evidence to discredit him. The opinion of a medical expert may be based upon personal knowledge or observation, or upon a hypothetical statement of facts, or, in some cases, upon the testimony of other witnesses. Sec. 1024, page 1786, Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2. 20 A. J. 814.

Even though a duty may be imposed upon the trial court to charge the jury, sua sponte, upon the principal issues in the case, it is hardly possible for the court to charge in such language as to comprehend every point of view in which the case may be put. The duty of charging the jury upon the issues of the case does not require that the court charge the jury fully upon all issues, and as the rule is laid down in some jurisdictions the trial court is not required to charge the jury unless requested to do so. Each party to a litigation therefore has the right to request that instructions either upon the general issues or upon particular phases of the case in order that the case may be fully presented to the jury, and to call the attention of the court to any omissions from its charge to the jury. 53 Am. Jur. 414.

If in any case a judgment can be reversed for failure of the trial judge to give a definition of reasonable doubt when the jury have been properly instructed that they must be satisfied of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and give him the benefit of every such doubt, it can only be had in cases where a party presents an instruction...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • State v. Salhus, 7377
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 9, 1948
    ...256, 65 P.2d 156, 162; State v. Hintz, 61 Idaho 411, 418, 102 P.2d 639, 643; State v. Taylor, 59 Idaho 724, 87 P.2d 454; State v. Catellier, Wyo., 179 P.2d 203, 227. It mandatory for the court to require the defendant to plead to the amended information in accordance with Sections 19-1612 a......
  • State v. Drury, 2599
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1974
    ...the death.' State v. Cooley (Mo.) 387 S.W.2d 544. 'And see State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E.2d 844, 31 A.L.R.2d 682; State v. Catellier, 63 Wyo. 123, 179 P.2d 203. Moreover, it is not indispensible to a conviction that the wounds be fatal and the direct cause of death. It is sufficient......
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1982
    ...be requested, and unless such requested instructions are correct it is proper for the court to refuse to give them. State v. Catellier, 63 Wyo. 123, 179 P.2d 203, 222 (1947). The proposed instruction is also argumentative, and a court may properly refuse instructions which are argumentative......
  • Grabill v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1980
    ...to the court before error can be predicated upon refusal to give it. Benson v. State, Wyo., 571 P.2d 595 (1977); State v. Catellier, 63 Wyo. 123, 179 P.2d 203 (1947); State v. Parmely, 65 Wyo. 215, 199 P.2d 112 We are not here saying that the defendant must word the requested limiting instr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT