State v. Gates

• Decision Date: 26 June 1902
• Parties: STATE v. GATES.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

69 P. 385

28 Wash. 689

STATE v. GATES.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 26, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Pacific county; W. O. Chapman, Judge.

Manuel Gates was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

Smith &amp Gudgel, for appellant.

John T Welsh and W. B. Stratton, for the State.

HADLEY J.

Appellant Manuel Gates, and one Lauritz Olsen were jointly charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. The information charged, in effect, that on the 29th day of August, 1900, in Pacific county, Wash., appellant and said Olsen killed and murdered one William Beeson, by cutting, stabbing, beating, and mortally wounding him, and by throwing him into the waters of Willapa Harbor. A trial was had, which resulted in a verdict of not guilty as to said Olsen, and of murder in the second degree as to the appellant, Gates. A new trial was granted as to appellant, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, and upon a second trial the court held that, since a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree had been returned against appellant, he could not be again tried for a higher degree of crime than murder in the second degree. He was accordingly tried for murder in the second degree, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. Thereafter, the court entered judgment upon the verdict, by which appellant was sentenced to serve a term of six years in the state penitentiary. From said judgment, this appeal is prosecuted.

The deceased, William Beeson, resided with his family at South Bend, Wash. He was a licensed pilot, and was master of the launch Leonore, which plied the waters of Willapa Harbor and its tributaries. On the morning of the 29th of August, 1900, the launch Leonore, with Captain Beeson as pilot, left the wharf at South Bend for McGowan's cannery, North River. Upon the arrival of the launch at said cannery, P.J. McGowan, who owned, or at least controlled, the launch, went on board, and he testified at the trial that there were no other persons on board besides Captain Beeson and himself. Beeson was to take McGowan to Nasel, and there leave him, when Beeson was to return with the launch the same day to South Bend. Upon his return, he was to tow a large scow to South Bend. The scow was then at the cannery at North River, and in the morning, when McGowan went aboard, the scow was attached to the launch, and with himself and McGowan aboard Beeson proceeded down North River on his way to Nasel; but, when he arrived at a certain beacon in the river, he attached the scow to the beacon, and left it until he should return in the evening. The launch then proceeded down North River into Willapa Harbor, and to Nasel. Upon arriving at Nasel, McGowan went ashore, and remained, but Beeson started with the launch on the return trip to South Bend. McGowan testified that no other person was aboard during the trip to Nasel, and that Beeson was alone upon the launch when it left Nasel. Two other witnesses testified that in the morning, when the scow was tied to the beacon, there were three men on board the launch, but the witnesses were some distance away and were unable to identify either of the three except Captain Beeson. It is the theory of counsel for defense that a third person was aboard the launch, whose presence was concealed from Mr. McGowan; since he testified positively that there was no other person upon the launch or accompanying them, and the sincerity of his testimony is not questioned. It is sufficient to say here that no further explanation appears as to the identity or presence of such third person, if there was such. On his return trip to South Bend, Beeson went up North River to the place where he left the scow in the morning, detached it from the beacon, and attached it to the starboard side of the launch. This was about 7:30 o'clock in the evening. He was seen at the time he detached the scow and started with it down the river, but no one testified that any other person was seen about the launch or scow at that time. He proceeded down the river and into Willapa Harbor. The tide was ebbing at the time, and the launch was making its way against the tide. No witness testified to having seen Beeson himself after the launch entered Willapa Harbor and started toward South Bend, although the launch itself was seen proceeding regularly on its course, and against the ebbing tide. The appellant was engaged in fishing at the time, and had his net placed in Willapa Harbor, between the place where the launch entered the harbor and South Bend. The aforesaid Olsen was employed by the appellant as a boat puller, and the two were busy about the net as the launch approached from below. The net was more than 700 feet in length, and was spread its entire length across a portion of the channel. Darkness came on before the launch reached the net, and the launch ran into it. The webbing became entangled with the propeller, and the launch could proceed no further. Appellant and his companion testified that they called out that the net was caught, but received no answer; that this was repeated several times, but no answer came; that appellant then went aboard the launch, and that he looked it over, and found no person aboard; that they then towed the launch and scow to South Bend, reaching there about 3 o'clock the next morning. A few days afterwards, the body of Captain Beeson was found floating in the bay; and an autopsy revealed that his throat had been cut with a knife or other sharp instrument; that there was a wound over the left eye, and another on the top of the head, which, the physicians testified, had been made with a blunt instrument; and that blows which were struck hard enough to produce such wounds would produce insensibility. A hole was found between the index finger and the thumb on the left hand, extending to the palmary surface, which the physicians testified might have been made by a gaff hook such as a fisherman uses. The physicians further testified that they examined the lungs, and found no water in them; that the lungs would float; that the wounds in the throat and on the head were the direct cause of death, and that it did not result from drowning. It would seem that Beeson could not have been killed for the purpose of robbery, since money and his watch were found with the body. There was evidence that appellant had said in a general way that any man who should run into his fish net would never run into another one, and also that he had directly threatened to kill Beeson if he should ever run into his net. One witness testified as follows: 'During the latter part of September, 1899, below Reeve's wharf, between Rude's wharf and Reeve's wharf, I had a net, and while I was mending on my net Jim Gates came up the way of Rude's sand pile, during the time I was knitting or mending. He told me there was a certain man he would like to have run into his net, and that that would be the last of him. I stopped knitting. I asked him who it was. He said, 'William Beeson.' He said he would have that for an excuse to kill him.' It was also testified that after the disappearance of Beeson, but before the discovery of his body, in a conversation with appellant the remark was made that Beeson's wife and family had come to South Bend, and that it was hard on them; to which appellant replied: 'Damn him! I don't care for him. I had it in for him, anyhow.' Appellant denies the making of the alleged threats, and says he had but little acquaintance with Beeson, and entertained only good will for him. Such is a brief outline of the more material facts and circumstances as they were detailed before the jury.

It is assigned as error that the court denied the motion of appellant, at the close of the state's testimony, that the jury be instructed to bring in a verdict of not guilty. It is urged that the corpus delicti was not proven; that there was not satisfactory proof that the deceased was even murdered; and in any event that it is not shown that appellant had an opportunity to kill him. The identity of the body found as that of William Beeson is not disputed; and we think the testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that death resulted from killing, rather than from accident, self-inflicted wounds, or drowning. 'The corpus delicti is a compound fact, made up of two things: First, the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and, second, the existence of criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.' 7 Am. & Eng Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 861. The presence of the body and the fact of the killing being established, the next inquiry is, what criminal agency caused the death, or who was the slayer? 'Beyond...