State v. Dunn

• Decision Date: 07 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20857.,20857.
• Citation: 140 Minn. 308,168 N.W. 2
• Parties: STATE v. DUNN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

140 Minn. 308

168 N.W. 2

STATE

v.DUNN.

No. 20857.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 7, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Hugo O. Hanft, Judge.

Frank J. Dunn was convicted of murder in the first degree, and from an order denying a new trial, he appeals. Order affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Appellant's wife, who had been granted a decree of separation from him, was murdered, and he, with four other persons, were jointly indicted for the crime. Appellant had a separate trial, at which the one who actually committed the deed and another accomplice then present testified for the state. Neither had had any direct communication with appellant. The theory of the state was that the alleged accomplice who procured these two witnesses to do the killing acted for appellant. It is held:

The evidence, aside from that given by the accomplices, is strong and persuasive that appellant not only had a motive, but had formed a fixed purpose, to procure some one to kill his wife, and that the actual murderer was procured by appellant's agent to carry out that purpose.

The testimony of the accomplices of the circumstances attending the murder, and tending to connect appellant with a conspiracy to commit the same, finds adequate corroboration in the record.

The evidence showing appellant to be the arch-conspirator, though circumstantial, is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The effect of the testimony as to previous good character was for the jury; it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that it is sufficient, when considered with all the evidence in the case, to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt.

A prima facie case of conspiracy by appellant and others to murder his wife made evidence admissible of the acts and statements thereafter made by any one of the conspirators in furtherance of the common purpose.

Oral testimony of the contends of a letter written to appellant was properly received; and it was not error to exclude self-serving statements of appellant as to his intentions or treatment of his wife.

The instruction given in respect to the corroboration of accomplices was correct and applicable to the facts developed in this case.

The slight inaccuracy in the use of words in a cautionary remark to the jury was not called to the attention of the court before the jury retired, and should not work a new trial.

Appellant was charged with murder, and not conspiracy, and was not entitled to an instruction that conspiracy must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before the act or declaration of a coconspirator received in evidence could be considered.

No error was made in refusing a request which singled out only two of the many witnesses whose testimony should be considered under the caution, of doubtful value, of ‘Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.’

The refusal to give other requests was not error; for, in so far as not covered by the charge, they were either incorrect or inapplicable.

The record furnishes no fair basis for charging the prosecuting attorney with misconduct. Douglas, Kennedy & Kennedy and Percy D. Godfrey, all of St. Paul, for appellant.

C. L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Richard D. O'Brien, Co. Atty., and Harry H. Peterson, Asst. Co. Atty., both of St. Paul, for the State.

HOLT, J.

The defendant, Frank J. Dunn, was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The victim was his wife, Alice M. Dunn. He appeals from the order denying a new trial.

Four propositions are advanced as grounds for a new trial, viz.: The evidence does not support a conviction; the court erred in rulings upon the admission and exclusion of testimony; there were errors and defects in the charge; and misconduct of counsel.

The main facts and circumstances leading up to and surrounding the crime, as revealed at the trial, which, the state contends, unerringly point to and prove defendant's guilt, will briefly be stated. At about 1:30 a. m. of April 26, 1917, three men, known as Joseph T. Redenbaugh, Frank McCool, and John Doyle, broke into the dwelling 793 Selby avenue, St. Paul, where resided James F. McQuillan and his family. The members of the family were Mr. McQuillan and his wife, two sons, and two daughters. The older of these daughters was Alice M. Dunn, a young woman about 27 years old. The house faced south on Selby avenue. The two daughters slept in the same bed in the southeast corner room on the second floor. Their parents occupied the northeast corner room on the same floor. One of the sons was in the room between the two mentioned; and the other son, a young lad, slept in the northwest corner room. Redenbaugh and McCool testified to the breaking in and to the fact that the former alone went into the southeast bedroom, flashed a searchlight into the faces of the two young women, and fired a 44–40 caliber Colt revolver three times into the head and body of Alice, while in the embrace of the sister, who was fully awake and frantically screaming. No effort was made to take the valuable diamond rings worn by Alice, nor her watch, nor any other valuables in that room. Before the shooting, Mr. McQuillan's bedroom was entered and a pocket book and a check book taken from the trousers. The money thus obtained was insignificant. The shooting and the screaming of the younger daughter aroused the other sleepers, and the murderers made a hasty retreat. On their way down town the pocket book and check book were thrown away; only the cash being retained. Redenbaugh and McCool testified that the murder was committed under an arrangement made with one Mike Moore, ostensibly the agent of defendant, and for which defendant was to pay the one who performed the deed $3,000 and Moore $1,000; that immediately after the murder the three actual participants returned to the two rooms, previously rented, at 301 West Third street; that in the morning Moore was called over the telephone and requested to come over with the money as soon as he got off duty; that he came about noon, and stated that Dunn was dissatisfied, because in the execution of the crime there was a failure to give the appearance that it was committed as an incident to robbery, as had been directed; he had only $65 with him, saying that he would get the balance before 2 o'clock from Dunn; that he was told to produce the balance at once or defendant would be dealt with as was his wife; that at about 2 p. m. he returned with $2,900 in currency, which was received and divided by Redenbaugh, McCool, and Doyle, the $100 being held out because of the $65 paid in the forenoon, and some $50 advanced before the murder. That evening Redenbaugh and McCool fied in a taxicab, they having directed their wives, who occupied the rooms with them, at 301 West Third street, the previous night, to buy transportation to Salt Lake, Utah. The driver of the taxicab was to take Redenbaugh and his companion to Shakopee, but high water diverted the party to Chaska. The next morning Redenbaugh and McCool bought tickets to Shakopee, and from there took the train to Omaha and the West coast, where later they were apprehended. Doyle has not been found.

Some events prior to the murder should be stated. On August 4, 1914, appellant, a widower 40 years old, married Alice M. McQuillan. They lived together for 70 days, then separated. The evidence adduced by the state tends to show that both the wife and her father made repeated attempts to reconciliation, but were met by surly rebuffs each time until some two weeks or so prior to the murder, when Dunn seems to have led his wife to believe that he was ready to again live with her at some place other than in St. Paul. The state contends that his apparent change of heart was but a ruse to encompass her death and forestall suspicion in his direction. For a time after the separation Alice lived in the house where they had stated housekeeping; he residing or boarding in an adjoining house also owned by him. During all this time appellant was in business, and had acquired considerable property, apparently. He had dealt in horses and stock, and for years had government contracts, carrying mail from the trains to the post office. Early in 1915 Mrs. Dunn began an action for separation. It was tried the latter part of June, and soon thereafter a decree in her favor was entered allowing her $70 a month for support, securing the payment thereof by affixing liens on his property. The publicity of the trial and the incumbering of his property appears to have galled appellant exceedingly; for the state produced evidence that about this time he began to lay plans for his wife's destruction. He made inquiries for the address of one Al. F. Brown, with whom he had worked, and who was known to have been suspected of crime. He obtained the address, and visited Brown in Montana July 3, 1915, related to him the troubles with Mrs. Dunn, and asked him whether he knew any one that for $10,000 would rid him of her. Upon a telegram from Brown Dunn, ten days or two weeks later, made another trip to Montana, met Brown, who introduced S. C. Ferdig as a person capable of doing what Dunn desired. Dunn registered at the hotel under the name of Murphy. Both Brown and Fordig testified that on this trip Dunn offered to pay a large sum if his wife could be put away. Some negotiations were had in respect to advance payments and terms, and Dunn returned to St. Paul. On July 22d or 23d Ferdig came to St. Paul. He received $1,000 from Dunn. He testified that Dunn took him to his house, procured him to take his meals there so that he could have the opportunity to become acquainted with the looks of his intended victim, who still resided in the adjoining house; that he pointed her out to him as she was sitting in a hammock; showed him a place near by, at the steps by the Selby tunnel, where Mrs. Dunn might be despatched; and took him in an automobile to the railroad yards where a getaway could be made after the crime had been...