State v. Chaney
| Decision Date | 16 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | 8370. |
| Parties | STATE v. CHANEY. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted April 15, 1936.
Syllabus by the Court.
It is the duty of the trial court, in prosecutions for murder, to inform the jury, without request, of their authority under Code 1931, 62-3-15, to determine whether the accused, if found guilty of murder in the first degree, shall be punished by death or confinement in the penitentiary for life. The rulings in State v. Cobbs, 40 W.Va. 718, 22 S.E 310; and State v. Beatty, 51 W.Va. 232, 41 S.E. 434 in so far as they may be in conflict with this decision, are overruled.
Error to Circuit Court, Logan County.
Ruben W. Chaney was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed, verdict set aside, and a new trial awarded.
C. C Chambers and R. H. Casto, both of Logan, for plaintiff in error.
Homer A. Holt, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth E. Hines, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Defendant, Ruben W. Chaney, was tried, convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to death, in the circuit court of Logan County, upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Henry Napier.
Ruben Chaney, Henry Napier, Dixie Chaney (sister of defendant and paramour of Napier), and Lindsey Blevins lived in a 4-room house at Lundale, Logan county. Ruben paid the rent; he and Henry furnished the groceries; and Dixie performed the housework. Lindsey, who was estranged from his wife, "boarded" with the household. Ottis Chaney, a brother of Ruben, lived next door, and Delphia Blevins, wife of Lindsey, "stayed" at the same place.
The evidence of the state shows that on Sunday afternoon, July 14, 1935, while Ottis, Henry, and Lindsey, were intoxicated, Ottis threw a glass (of some sort) against the house in which the Chaneys and Napier resided, and an altercation between him and Henry ensued; that Ruben, who was at the home of Ottis, being informed of the trouble, returned to his house and found Henry and Ottis in the kitchen, quarreling; that he ordered them to cease the disturbance, and took hold of Ottis; that Dixie at the same time attempted to restrain Henry who broke away from her, and, either pushing or striking the defendant aside, attacked Ottis; that in the mêlée, Ottis knocked Henry to the floor and began to pommel him; that Lindsey, coming from an adjoining room, seized Ottis by the shoulders in an effort to stop the affray; whereupon, Ruben attacked Lindsey with a razor, cutting him 14 times and compelling him to run from the house; that he next attacked and cut Ottis, forcing him also to flee; that he then began slashing Henry; and, when Dixie interfered, cut her on the arm; that Henry was so severely cut that he died in a few minutes; that Ruben later took his stand on the front porch, where Henry was dying, and, flourishing the razor, forbade any one to come near; that there was no other weapon used or displayed except the razor in the hands of Ruben.
The uncorroborated story of the defendant is that when he ordered Henry and Ottis to stop quarreling in his house, Henry (with whom he had never had any trouble) drew a knife, and some one struck him from the side knocking him against a mantel where his hand came in contact with the razor; that Henry desisted from the assault after defendant had struck him a few blows with the razor; and that he then turned to Blevins and Ottis, who were "pounding" him, and struck them with the razor; that he did not know how Dixie was cut; and sustained no injuries in the fight, but thought his shirt was cut in two or three places.
The defendant was indicted September 9, 1935, and, being without funds, R. H. Casto, a practicing attorney of Logan, was appointed, September 16th, as counsel to defend him in the case which was set for trial September 23d. On the day fixed for trial, defendant, upon arraignment, pleaded not guilty and moved for a continuance because of the absence of Martin Gamble, an alleged material witness in his behalf, for whom a subp na had been issued without avail. Evidence heard on the motion showed that Paul Perry and Martin Gamble had been admitted to the house by Ruben Chaney soon after the murder before any one else entered; that directly after his visit to the house, Gamble delivered to his niece, Delphia Blevins, a long-bladed pocket knife which he claimed to have picked up on the floor; that the knife was turned over to H. R. Shields, a member of the department of public safety; that the knife, the blade of which bore a small blood stain, had been misplaced by the officer and was not produced at the hearing of the motion or the trial. Paul Perry testified that he saw Gamble with the knife before they entered the house. The evidence also showed that Gamble was drunk at the time of entering the house and had made conflicting statements as to the room in which he picked up the knife. Officer Shields testified that Gamble, after visiting the house in which the homicide was committed, had stated on the same evening that he knew nothing about the case. The court refused a continuance, but postponed the trial until October 14th. Defendant, through his counsel, did not secure any further subp na for Gamble, but attempted to reach him by letters addressed to him at six places in Kentucky and one in West Virginia where it was supposed he might be found. On October 14th, a motion for a continuance to the next term of court, on the same ground, was overruled and the trial proceeded. There was no appreciable evidence that the testimony of the absent witness could probably have been obtained at the next term of court. The defendant has been confined in jail since his arrest on the day of the homicide. Gamble was the only witness to the alleged finding of the knife.
On a motion to set aside the verdict, defendant assigned as grounds (1) the refusal of the motion for a continuance; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; and (3) after-discovered evidence based upon the affidavit of Delphia Blevins to the effect that Napier, in an intoxicated condition some 30 minutes before the difficulty, said to her that some big son-of-a-bitch was going to die before night. She had visited the defendant in jail several times before the trial. The motion was overruled, and judgment entered thereon, sentencing defendant to death.
The defendant now presents the same errors assigned on the motion to set aside the verdict as grounds for reversal.
In view of the conclusive nature of the evidence on the merits, there is no legal basis for reversal because of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Likewise, owing to the indefinite character of the alleged after-discovered evidence, a new trial would not be warranted on that ground.
The jury was instructed concerning the elements constituting murder in the first and second degrees, but the record is...
To continue reading
Request your trial