State v. Gordon
| Decision Date | 23 May 1935 |
| Citation | 37 Del. 219,181 A. 361 |
| Parties | STATE v. HERMAN GORDON |
| Court | Court of Oyer and Terminer of Delaware, New Castle County |
Court of Oyer and Terminer for New Castle County. Indictment for manslaughter, No. 82, May Term, 1935.
The evidence produced by the State tended to show that on the evening of March 30, 1935, one Russell Somers, with some unknown person, went into the house of the defendant, Gordon and asked him whether supper was ready. Gordon then told Somers that he did not board there and that he had been expressly told to stay away from that house. Somers then became angry and not only slapped the defendant, Gordon, in the face, but cut him in the neck with a knife.
Other evidence produced by the State tended to show that after Somers had cut the defendant he left the house and went into the street and stood behind his car, which was parked there that while standing in the street back of his car he was shot by Gordon with a shotgun, and received injuries from which he subsequently died; that when Gordon fired the fatal shot he was standing in the vestibule of his house, and Somers then had no weapon in his hand and was, in no way, threatening an attack on him.
The evidence produced by the defendant as to what took place in the house did not materially differ from that produced by the State. It did tend to show, however, that instead of slapping him, Somers struck Gordon in the face with his fist, and also, cut him twice in the neck with a knife, causing wounds which bled profusely, and seriously weakened him. Gordon, also, testified that he wished to go to the hospital for treatment of these wounds, but, because of the attack that Somers had made on him shortly before, he feared further violence from him. That because of that fact, he loaded his gun and went into the vestibule of his house, and then saw Somers on the pavement with a knife in his hand advancing toward him, and, also, heard him make threatening remarks.
The defendant, after testifying that he had known Russell Somers before March 30, 1935, then testified:
Q. Did you know his reputation for being quarrelsome and violent?
A. Yes, sir. [1]
The defendant was, also, asked:
Q. At the time of the shooting did you know of a specific instance, or had you heard of one, in which Russell Somers was engaged in a fight in which he was the aggressor and used a knife?
This question was objected to by the State on the ground that, even though self-defense was in issue in the case, the violent and turbulent character of the deceased could only be shown by general reputation and not by proof of specific acts of violence toward other persons, though known to the defendant. State v. Short, 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 491, 82 A. 239.
The defendant's attorney denied that State v. Short supported the State's contention. He contended that it appeared from the evidence that self-defense, at the time of the shooting, was in issue, and that under such circumstances, the known reputation of the deceased for turbulence and violence was admissible because of its effect on the mind of the defendant, and to aid in determining whether, at the time of the shooting, he was in reasonable fear of death or of great bodily harm at the hands of the deceased. State v. Wiggins, 7 Penn. 127, 76 A. 632.
He further contended that applying the same general principles, and because of its possible effect on the mind of the defendant at the time of the shooting, he should be permitted to show the turbulent character of the deceased by prior specific acts of violence toward third persons, which were known to the defendant. State v. Short, 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 491, 82 A. 239; Wigmore on Ev., § 198, 246.
He likewise contended that there was no difference in principle where the evidence offered merely showed one prior act of violence by the deceased toward a third person, which was known to the defendant, or several acts (Wigmore on Ev., §§ 246, 248); the effect of such evidence being for the jury to determine.
The objection is overruled.
C. Edward Duffy, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Dudley C. Lunt for the defendant.
In State v. Short, 2 Boyce (25 Del.) 491, 82 A. 239, the defendant, claiming to have acted in self-defense, was asked if the deceased had ever told him of an altercation he had previously had with another person, and he answered that the deceased...
To continue reading
Request your trial