State v. Epes

• Decision Date: 18 October 1946
• Docket Number: 15876.
• Parties: STATE v. EPES.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

39 S.E.2d 769

209 S.C. 246

STATE v. EPES.

No. 15876.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 18, 1946

Edgar A. Brown and J. Julien Bush, both of Barnwell, Richard E. Broome and J. A. Hutto, both of Columbia, A. F. Woods, of Marion, and L. S. Bremner, of Richmond, Va., for appellant.

T. P. Taylor, Sol., C. T. Graydon, and John Grimball, all of Columbia, for respondent.

FISHBURNE, Justice.

Under an indictment charging him with the murder of his wife, Mary Lee Epes, on January 28, 1945, by administering to her sodium seconal, a deadly poison, the appellant was put upon his trial in the court of general sessions for Richland County in September, 1945, and by a verdict of the jury was found guilty of murder, with recommendation to mercy. His punishment was fixed under the law at imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life.

From the judgment of that court and from the order denying his motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of the testimony offered in behalf of the state, and from the order refusing his motion for a judgment of acquittal non obstante veredicto, he appeals to this court.

The defendant offered no testimony. His contention on trial, and now, is that the state failed to prove the corpus delicti. Here the fact of death is not questioned, but it is argued that there was no evidence going to show that the appellant committed the crime charged. It is earnestly pressed upon our attention by counsel for appellant that there is a total failure of evidence from which it may be inferred that the accused knew that the sodium seconal was a deadly poison when he administered it to his wife. It cannot be doubted that unless the state produced some competent evidence, direct or circumstantial, tending to show that the appellant wilfully and feloniously administered to his wife the sodium seconal, knowing its deadly properties, the jury should have been directed to find him not guilty of murder. In this case, the proof offered by the state was confined almost entirely to circumstantial evidence.

In proving corpus delicti, the law demands the best proof which in the nature of the case is attainable. Direct and positive evidence is not essential. It is now well established that the elements constituting the corpus delicti in a homicide case--the death of the person whose life is alleged to have been taken feloniously, and the criminal agency of another in taking the life of such person--may be sufficiently proved by presumptive or circumstantial evidence, where that is the best evidence obtainable. State v. Thomas, 159 S.C 76, 156 S.E. 169; State v. Gillis, 73 S.C. 318, 53 S.E. 487, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 571, 114 Am.St.Rep. 95, 6 Ann.Cas 993.

If there is no proof of the corpus delicti, the defendant is entitled as a matter of law to a directed verdict. State v. Brown, 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21, L.R.A.1916D, 1295. It is generally recognized, however, that in cases of felonious homicide by poisoning, the cause of death can rarely be proved by direct evidence, and the proof of it by circumstantial evidence is often attended by peculiar difficulties. People v. Harris, 136 N.Y. 423, 33 N.E. 65; Annotation, 78 Am.Dec. 256.

A careful reading and analysis of the evidence contained in this voluminous record leads to the inevitable conclusion that the trial judge committed no error in overruling the motion for a directed verdict and submitting this case to the jury.

Mary Lee Williams and the defendant, Epes, were married on September 5, 1940, at the home of her parents in Jacksonville, Florida. Following the outbreak of World War II, appellant was inducted into the armed forces and later attained the rank of lieutenant. He served in an ambulance company connected with a medical administration detachment, which, among other duties, had to do with the removal of the dead and wounded from combat areas. In the course of his service he was ordered to various military posts in the United States, among them Louisiana and South Carolina. Because of his frequent change of base and the war time difficulty in obtaining living quarters, the defendant and his wife, Mary Lee, were separated a great deal of the time during their married life.

On January 3, 1945, Epes was transferred to Fort Jackson, near Columbia, and from there proceeded to Jacksonville, where his wife was teaching, to bring her to Columbia, where he had obtained a small apartment on Sims Avenue. In this apartment consisting of one small bedroom, bath, and kitchenette, the accused and his wife set up housekeeping on January 18, 1945. The appellant owned an automobile, a coupe, and drove to Fort Jackson each morning to attend to his duties, and returned at the close of the day's work.

On Monday night, January 29th, about eleven o'clock, he went to the police station in the city of Columbia and reported that his wife was missing. He stated to the officers that at 7:30 o'clock that morning he had driven his wife to Main Street in Columbia; that she alighted in front of Harvey's Cafeteria to get breakfast, and later to do some shopping; that he proceeded to Fort Jackson. Upon his return to the apartment that evening, she was not there, and he inquired of Dr. and Mrs. Ferguson, who occupied an apartment across the hall, if they had seen her. They had not seen her that day, so could not give him any information concerning her whereabouts. The police officers, after gaining from him all the information they could obtain, commenced a vigorous investigation and search, which continued unabated until February 12th. During this time they followed various clues, together with the sheriff and his deputies offered rewards, broadcast appeals over the radio; and mailed circulars containing Mary Lee's description and the date of her disappearance to police officers in various states of the union. They consulted with the appellant almost daily, and he was in touch with them constantly, and ostensibly cooperated with them.

Two days after Mary Lee's disappearance, her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, came to Columbia from their home in Jacksonville, and occupied the small apartment on Sims Avenue. After their arrival, Lt. Epes slept at Fort Jackson or elsewhere, but was on the most friendly terms with them, and they frequently ate together in the apartment.

On February 12th, or earlier, as appears from the record, the police officers and detectives, and officers from the Provost Marshal's office at Fort Jackson, suspected the criminal agency of the appellant in the disappearance of his wife, and on that day they questioned him for several hours. Until this time he had shown unbroken composure--in fact, one of the things which directed the attention of the officers to appellant was his consistent calim, absence of all nervousness, and his failure to exhibit any emotion during their investigation of his wife's disappearance.

Sometime prior to the 12th they had discovered that he had, during October, November, and December, 1944, spent several week ends with a young woman in Louisiana, at Lake Charles and in the city of New Orleans. In New Orleans they had registered at a hotel as man and wife.

During the lengthy conference referred to on February 12th, one officer after another questioned him; his calm continued unshaken until they mentioned the name of this young woman, and then for the first time he showed nervousness. He told the officers that he would be ruined if this disclosure was made public and the name of the young woman brought into the affair. When this interrogation ended, late in the afternoon of the 12th, appellant, who had been bitten by a dog a day or two before, returned to the hospital at Fort Jackson where he was being given anti-rabies treatment; but as to this he had previously told Mrs. Williams, his wife's mother, that he believed his being placed in the hospital was a pretense; that he feared that the officers would have him psychoanalyzed.

On the next morning, February 13th, appellant attempted to commit suicide. He slashed both wrists, and cut a deep gash in his throat. When his condition was discovered, about eight o'clock a. m., he had lost a great deal of blood, and the medical testimony shows that death would have resulted if he had not received prompt treatment. He was given several blood transfusions and was soon revived, and his wounds treated and dressed. On that morning four letters were discovered near the bunk he occupied in the hospital ward, which had been written by him just prior to his attempted suicide. Although no charge of any kind had been made against him at that time, these letters show that he knew that he was under suspicion.

In his letter to Mr. and Mrs. Williams, his wife's parents, he asserted his innocence, but states: 'Although I did not commit any crime they (the officers) say they can disprove my statements.' It may be inferred that these letters were designed as self-serving declarations. They deny guilt, but the court and the jury were at liberty, in connection with other circumstances, to infer guilt from them.

The letter written to his father and mother specifically denies that he had any connection with Mary Lee's 'vanishing.' In the letter addressed to his wife's parents he stated that he had nothing to do with his wife's disappearance, despite the police investigation.

In the third letter, addressed to Major Gaines, Provost Marshal, who was active in the investigation, the appellant reiterated with reference to his wife's disappearance, 'I have had no connection with the whole matter.'

The fourth letter was addressed to the young woman in Louisiana. He told her that the police had found out 'about my knowing you.' 'I can't cause you any disgrace and scandal, nor can I bring that upon my family, so I am...