State v. Chin Lung

• Decision Date: 26 October 1927
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. CHIN LUNG ET AL.

139 A. 91

106 Conn. 701

STATE v. CHIN LUNG ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

October 26, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Newell Jennings, Judge.

Chin Lung and another were convicted of murder in the first degree on trial to a jury, and they appeal. No error.

Homer S. Cummings, of Stamford, and Frank E. Healy and Francis P Rohrmayer, both of Hartford, for appellants.

Hugh M Alcorn, State's Atty., and Reinhart L. Gideon, Asst State's Atty., both of Hartford, for the State.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

WHEELER, C.J.

We will first consider the motion to set aside the verdict, and then take up the several interlocutory rulings made in the course of the trial. Under the rule prevailing in this jurisdiction we examine and test the evidence in the same way the jury should have done in reaching its verdict. If we find it to be one which 12 honest men, acting fairly, intelligently, and reasonably, might have rendered, we cannot set it aside. If, on the other hand, we find it does manifest injustice, and is so palpably against the evidence as to indicate that the jury must have made some mistake in the application of legal principles, or were influenced by lack of knowledge or understanding, or by corruption, prejudice, or partiality, we will set it aside. State v. Schutte, 97 Conn. 462, 464, 117 A. 508; Howe v. Raymond, 74 Conn. 68, 71, 49 A. 854; Brooks' Appeal from Probate, 68 Conn. 294, 296, 297, 36 A. 47; State v. Buxton, 79 Conn. 477, 480, 65 A. 957. Our rule in the criminal case is the same as in the civil. When the manifest injustice of the verdict is so plain as to justify the belief that the jury or some of its members were influenced by ignorance, prejudice, corruption, or partiality, the verdict will be set aside, even though there was conflicting evidence. " Clearly," we say in Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co., 90 Conn. 18, 19, 96 A. 169, " the action of a jury may be as unreasonable, and as suggestive of being produced by improper influences, in passing upon the credibility of witnesses and in the weighing of conflicting testimony, as in any other respect."

Two considerations must be kept before the court before we can set aside a verdict. Great weight must be given to the ruling of the trial court and all reasonable presumptions resolved in its support. Uncas Paper Co. v. Corbin, 75 Conn. 675, 677, 55 A. 165. It must be remembered that the trial judge " was acting in the exercise of a legal discretion, and his action is not to be disturbed by us unless it clearly appears that the discretion was abused." " The question never is whether this court, upon the evidence in a cause, would come to the conclusion reached by the jury, but it is rather whether that conclusion is manifestly an unreasonable one under all the circumstances; such an one as no jury, acting fairly and reasonably, would be likely to reach on the evidence." Brooks' Appeal from Probate, supra. Our rule means this:

" The verdict will not be disturbed if there is any reasonable ground appearing in the evidence on which the jury might have acted." Loomis v. Perkins, 70 Conn. 444, 446, 39 A. 797, 798.

We not only require the guilt of the accused to be affirmatively proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt, but General Statutes, § 6633, provides that:

" No person shall be convicted of any crime punishable by death without the testimony of at least two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto."

The meaning of this statute was settled by judicial construction at an early time. " By this statute the testimony of one witness swearing either directly or to circumstances, is not enough to convict of murder in the first degree. It must be the testimony of two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto. This does not mean that there must be two witnesses to every fact or circumstance constituting the same. If there be two or more witnesses, each testifying to different parts of the same transaction, or to different circumstances attending it, and all concur to prove the crime alleged, this may be sufficient to warrant a conviction though there should not be two witnesses to any one fact." State v. Schutte, 97 Conn. 462, 465-468, 117 A. 508, 511.

The denial of the motion to set aside the verdict, as we said in State v. Chapman, 103 Conn. 453, 457, 130 A. 899, 901, " is to be tested by determining whether the jury might reasonably have found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused as charged with the commission of the crime of murder in the first degree and by evidence equivalent to that of two witnesses."

For the proper application of this rule we have reviewed the evidence with great care and made every reasonable allowance for the comparative unfamiliarity of these accused with our language, customs, and life. The jury might reasonably have found from the evidence offered by the state that the accused, Chin Lung, whom we shall hereafter designate as Chin, was seen on the day before the homicide on the Main Street of Manchester, going in the direction of Oak Street, and about 550 feet from the laundry of Ong Jing who had done business in Manchester for 14 years and was known as Sam, as we shall hereafter designate him. On the next morning March 24th, by arrangement made the evening before, Soo Hoo Wing, whom we shall hereafter designate as Soo, waked Chin at 5:45 and together they walked to City Hall Square, Hartford, where Soo engaged a taxi to take them to the Union Station, Soo paying the fare. Outside the station Chin passed a taxicab whose windows exposed to view those in the rear seat and came to a taxi whose windows did not expose those in the rear seat to view and at the suggestion of Soo caused its horn to sound, the driver came, Chin got in the taxi, and by his direction drove across the Street to get Soo who stood on the curb reading a newspaper. Soo arranged with the driver to take them to Manchester and back to Hartford and thence to Meriden for $15. When they reached Manchester the driver, by direction of Chin, drove down Main Street until Chin tapped on the front glass with the newspaper to attract the driver's attention and directed him to turn around; when he reached Oak Street in response to a like tapping the driver stopped at the corner. The newspaper used was that which Soo had been reading on the curb. Chin and Soo alighted and proceeded up the north side of Oak Street on which the laundry of Sam was located about 500 feet distant. After passing a store they stopped about 68 feet from the laundry and conversed, Soo then came back and said to a man standing in a doorway, and about 128 feet from the laundry, " Any customers?" Upon receiving a negative reply Soo joined Chin and they proceeded to the door of the laundry and Chin rapped, but no one came to the door. Soo then returned to the taxi, which had driven across Main Street and was headed toward Hartford and out of the vision of persons on Oak Street, and, saying he was cold, got in the taxi.

After Soo left, Chin rapped again, and Sam came to the door and admitted him, and he at once asked for money. On Sam refusing, Chin asked for Ong Geng Hem; being told he was in bed, Chin asked Sam to call him, who told Chin to call him himself. Chin went to the door of the bedroom and told Ong Geng Hem to get up, which he did, put on his shirt and trousers, and went into the lavatory located off the washroom, which was in front of the bedroom and in the rear of the ironing room behind the office. The laundry was a one-story building 38x19 feet and comprised these four rooms. Sam heard Ong Geng Hem get up, heard him while in the lavatory, and knew when he came from it. Almost immediately thereafter Sam heard three sounds, like bang, bang, bang; then Chin came to the room where Sam sat by the stove, pointed a revolver at him, and cried out, " Don't you move. If you move your hands, I will kill you," and rushed to the front entrance, and as he was leaving shouted that Geng Hem was a member of the Hip Sing Tong, a Chinese society. Sam, in fresh pursuit, ran out of the laundry close after Chin and yelled at a shoemaker nearby, " Shot my cousin Chinaman, catch him." Both chased Chin up Oak Street to Main and lost him there. Sam returned to the laundry with a tailor from a nearby store, and upon the floor just outside the lavatory Ong Geng Hem lay dead in a pool of his own blood. The officers took possession of the laundry almost at once, and thereafter held possession of it, finding in it no indication of a struggle. The chief of police sent for the county detective, and not long after both left for Hartford, taking Sam with them; at the Union Station they found the driver of the taxi which had taken the accused to Manchester and thence proceeded to Meriden, and then to New Haven, taking the taxi driver as well as Sam with them. When Chin disappeared around the corner of Oak and Main Streets he boarded his waiting taxi, and by Soo's direction the driver started for Hartford and continued on to Meriden, where they discharged this taxi, and shortly Soo engaged another taxi of a different color nearby to take them to New Haven for $8. As they drove down Ferry Street in New Haven a traffic officer who had been instructed to arrest two Chinamen in a taxicab of a different number arrested the accused and took them afterward to headquarters. At first they refused to say whether they came from Hartford; later, Chin told the officers he lived in Hartford, had arisen that morning at 8, and he and his friend started for New Haven looking for work. When asked about the shooting in Manchester, he refused to talk. Later in the morning Sam was brought to headquarters...