State v. Chaves.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1921
• Docket Number: No. 2595.,2595.
• Citation: 202 P. 694,27 N.M. 504
• Parties: STATEv.CHAVES.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

27 N.M. 504

202 P. 694

STATE

v.CHAVES.

No. 2595.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 3, 1921.

Syllabus by the Court.

Evidence considered, and held to prove the corpus delicti independent of a confession.

If a confession has been made under circumstances rendering it involuntary, a presumption exists that a second confession is the result of the prior influence. The circumstances of this case show that this presumption was sufficiently rebutted.

It is not error to refuse a requested instruction which is merely cumulative.

A requested instruction which incorrectly states the law is properly refused.

Appeal from District Court, Sandoval County; Holloman, Judge.

Luis Chaves was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A requested instruction which incorrectly states the law is properly refused.

Thos. K. D. Maddison and Simms & Botts, all of Albuquerque, for appellant.

Harry S. Bowman, Atty. Gen., and A. M. Edwards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIS, J.

On July 17, 1918, Pat Smith was manager of a store at Seda To in Sandoval county. On that day he was killed, and the store building burned to the ground. The first witnesses to reach the scene arrived at about 1 o'clock the following morning. The fire was still burning. In the ruins of the building they found the body of Pat Smith, badly burned. His skull was crushed as though from a blow with a blunt instrument, the wound being about two and a half inches in diameter, and evidently sufficient to cause his death. An inquiry was commenced among Navajo Indians living in the vicinity and two of them, one being Luis Chaves, appellant here, were arrested. They were interrogated at length and finally both confessed to the killing of Smith and the burning of the store, going into details as to the manner in which both crimes were committed. Some days later, on a preliminary examination before a justice of the peace at which they were accused of the murder of Smith, they again admitted the crime. Both were later indicted for murder, but only Luis Chaves was tried. He was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals.

[1] Counsel for appellant argue that there was no sufficient proof of the corpus delicti, that his confession was improperly admitted, and that certain requested instructions were erroneously refused.

Upon the first point appellant contends that, excluding the confession from consideration, there is no sufficient proof of the corpus delicti. It is trite to observe that in every criminal prosecution the first step must be to prove that the crime charged has been committed by some one. This proof may or may not primarily connect the defendant with the offense. In homicide cases it must be shown that the person whose death is alleged in the indictment is in fact dead, and that his death was criminally caused. If these facts are shown the corpus delicti is sufficiently proven. And this need not be proved by testimony of eyewitnesses. Circumstances may demonstrate it. State v. Sakariason, 21 N. M. 207, 211, 153 Pac. 1034. The proof in this case unquestionably proved the death. The body was found and fully identified. And the fact that death was criminally caused was likewise shown. The body was found in a room occupied by Smith on the ground floor of a three–room store building destroyed by fire. There was a wound on the head sufficient to cause death. There is nothing to indicate suicide or accident. The conclusion that he met his death at the hands of some human being who is criminally responsible for it is irresistible. Counsel for appellant suggest that the wound might have been caused by the falling of a stone from a wall of the building, but the facts controvert this theory, first, because negatived by the character of the wound, and, second, because there was evidence that the walls were still standing when the body was found. There was sufficient proof of the corpus delicti without reference to the confession, and it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the confession might have been considered in aid of it.

The admission of the confession is claimed as error. There were two confessions, one made to the Indian agent and others at Crown Point, and the other before the justice of the peace at Bernalillo. The court inquired as to the voluntary character of each of these confessions to determine its admissibility. It concluded that the first was the result of urging and promises by the Indian agent, and therefore excluded it, but the second was held voluntary, and admitted. The second confession was made some 12 days after the first one at Crown Point upon the preliminary examination of appellant upon the charge of murder. Appellant then stated, in effect, that he went to the store where Smith was employed to buy a pair of overalls, which Smith refused to sell to him. Appellant and the Indian with him were drunk. Smith was sitting in a chair, and appellant struck him on the head with the butt of a pistol. He fell from the chair, and appellant himself, or the other Indian took the chair and “finished him up with it.” Then they went to an oil house near the store, soaked some burlap with oil, threw it into the store, and, while appellant did not expressly state that they set fire to it, the connection between these acts and the fire is obvious. The trial court held that, while there was a presumption that this confession was involuntary, this presumption was removed by the evidence presented by the state. The admission of this confession is assigned as error, and counsel for appellant contend that, since the first was held involuntary because induced by the promises of the Indian agent, it must be presumed that the influence continued and the second was of the same character. The action of the court in excluding the first confession is not before us for review, and for the purposes of this case we will...