State v. Harris

• Decision Date: 05 September 1963
• Docket Number: No. 33754,33754
• Citation: 385 P.2d 18,62 Wn.2d 858
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Claude William HARRIS, Appellant.

Page 858

62 Wn.2d 858

385 P.2d 18

STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Claude William HARRIS, Appellant.

No. 33754.

Supreme Court of Washington, Department 2.

Sept. 5, 1963.

Rehearings Denied Nov. 5, 1963.

Roderick, Lobdell, Makus & Coney, Jack J. Lobdell, Seattle, for appellant.

Charles O. Carroll, Pros, Atty., Victor V. Hoff, Deputy Pros. Atty., Seattle, for respondent.

DONWORTH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence of life imprisonment entered upon a verdict of guilty of a charge of murder in the first degree. The jury did not inflict the death penalty.

The state's evidence was entirely circumstantial, since no one witnessed the homicide which was very brutal and revolting. We shall not describe it in detail in this opinion except to the extent necessary to an understanding of appellant's 13 assignments of error.

Appellant did not take the stand, and his only evidence consisted of copies of two wills (which will be discussed later in this opinion). He was represented at the trial by counsel other than the attorney who is representing him on this appeal.

The information on which appellant was tried charged him with murder in the first degree, committed on or about July 28, 1955, by (1) striking, beating, wounding, choking or strangling Belle May with a premeditated design to effect her death, from which wounds she then died, or (2) while engaged in the commission of, or attempt to commit, the crime of rape, he inflicted mortal woulds on Belle May, from which she then died.

The trial began on February 26, 1956, and ended March 5, 1956. ¹ The verdict was returned the following day. The state produced 37 witnesses and a tatal of 72 exhibits were marked for identification (some of which were not admitted in evidence).

The state's evidence tended to show that Mrs. May was a widow 72 years of age, who lived in her home near Renton. July 28, 1955, one of her married daughters drove to her mother's house to take her out in the car. She arrived in front of the house about 12:45 p. m. and honked her horn. Receiving no response from her mother, she sent her 14-year-old son into the house. He went upstairs, saw part of her body, and ran back to the car. He told his mother that something terrible had happened to his grandmother. The daughter then rushed upstairs, saw her mother's body, and hurried home, where she called the police. She and her husband and her son returned to her mother's house about 1:30 p. m., where they found at least 8 law enforcement officers on the premises.

Mrs. May's body was not found in her own bedroom but in another bedroom used by her brother-in-law, Fred May. They had both lived in the house for many years. He was employed at the Pacific Car & Foundry Company plant near Renton, and had left home for work about 7:30 a. m. on the day of the homicide. Mrs. May's daughter telephoned him at the plant about 1:30 p. m. regarding the tragedy and met him at the house when he arrived there by taxicag.

Fred May was the sole beneficiary under Mrs. May's will, to the exclusion of her two daughters. He committed suicide about 10 days after her death, leaving a will in which he named as his sole legatee Mrs. May's daughter (who had telephoned him about the homicide). During the period between Mrs. May's death and his suicide, Fred May did not go to work regularly; he acted 'awfully nervous,' according to a coworker who had been a close friend of Fred May's for 5 years. After the homicide, Fred May worked for 2 days and then told this man that he was going to lay off work for a few days to attend to some personal business. These circumstances were argued to the jury by the defense counsel in an attempt to cast doubt upon the guilt of appellant. The verdict of the jury shows that they did not find the argument convincing in light of the other evidence presented by the state.

Dr. Wilson, who performed an autopsy on the body of Belle May, described the condition of her body in detail, using pictures admitted in evidence. A vacuum cleaner cord was around the victim's neck when he first saw the body in the morgue. Attached to the cord was the handle. The autopsy surgeon gave as his opinion that death occurred between 10 a. m. and noon on July 28, 1955. As to the cause of death, Dr. Wilson testified:

'* * * The cause of death was a compound fractured skull as a result of the fractures that you see here, and also it shows in [Exhibit] 38 a protruding tongue which showed that she was still alive at the time the vacuum cleaner cord was drawn around her neck, and the immediate cause of death was strangulation. She probably would have died from the skull fracture very shortly, but she was still alive when the cord was looped about her neck.'

Appellant was an electrician, who was employed to do certain electrical installation work at Mrs. May's home. He had worked there several days before her death. On the day of her death, his car was seen parked near her house at about 9 or 9:30 a. m., and again at 11:15 a. m.

The state's evidence further showed that appellant, on the day of the homicide, was wearing crepe-soled shoes, which made footprints with a distinctive pattern. Such footprints were found in the hall near the door to the bedroom on the second floor, where the body was discovered, and others were found going into Mrs. May's bedroom and on the stairs leading to the bedrooms. Such footprints were also found on the downstairs porch near the fuse box, in the hallways, and in the dust in the carport and garage. At the time of his arrest he had some recent scratches on his cheeks, one ear, and on his chest. He said that he had cut himself while shaving. A spot of human blood was found on one of his shoes.

Appellant, at the time of the homicide, was a divorced man, 53 years of age, who lived in Kent where he had an electrical repair shop. He was arrested about 6 p. m. on July 28, 1955, while driving his car on a street in Kent. That evening, he gave an oral statement to two detectives at the sheriff's office in Seattle in which he told of his movements during the 12-hour period prior to his arrest. Concerning his activities at the May home on the morning of July 28, appellant's statement (as written down by one of the detectives in his presence) contained the following:

'I drove directly to May's getting there about 9:00 a. m. May's is the house just this side of the Renton Auction Barn, Renton, Washington. When I got to Mays I waterproofed the flashing on the porch roof. The [sic] then filled out the white inspection card shown to me by the detectives. After I filled that out the inspector happened to come by and he had me change one of the wires to the hot water tank. I changed it and then when I was through with it I checked the circuits and fuses again and everything seemed to be in working order. I left the door of the fuse-box open waiting for the inspector to come back for the final check--they always do that so far as I know. I then told Mrs. May that I was finished and that I was going. Mrs. May then told me to come in and have a glass of beer before I left. Mrs. May opened a can of Schlitz for me and I poured it into a glass and drank it. This was near the table in the kitchen. At the same time I was drinking the beer she was sitting at the kitchen table drinking wine. She had a water glass about half full from what I know. While I was drinking the beer Mrs. May was worried about getting the stove in. I left after that probably about 10:00 or 10:30 and I went directly to the Renton power company and asked one of the girls there if they had the report for Mrs. May's thru wire service. The girl checked the file and she said that she already had it. * * *'

The state introduced other circumstantial evidence tending to connect appellant with the homicide. The total evidence, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to support the verdict.

We now consider appellant's assignments of error in the order in which they are stated in his brief. ²

Assignment No. 1. It is claimed that the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, six specific items: a vacuum cleaner handle, a piece of the vacuum cleaner, pieces of a mirror, an apron (all found in the bedroom where the victim's body was discovered), and a brassiere taken from her body. These exhibits were mailed by the sheriff's office to the FBI in Washington, D. C. An FBI officer testified that he had examined these exhibits and subjected them to certain tests. Thereafter, they were returned to the sheriff's office in Seattle. Appellant contends that these exhibits were not shown to have been in the custody of law officers at all times before being admitted in evidence.

Appellant, in support of this assignment, cites State v. Williams, 49 Wash.2d 354, 301 P.2d 769 (1956), in which the court was concerned with the question of the genuineness of a tape-recorded confession. That case is not in point here for reasons that are clear from a reading of the opinion.

We have examined the testimony relating to these six exhibits and are of the opinion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting them in evidence. The weight to be given these items as bearing on the issue of appellant's guilt or innocence was a matter for the jury to pass upon.

Assignment No. 2. The second assignment relates to a newspaper containing an article concerning the trial of this case which was found in the jury room. Appellant complains that his motion for a mistrial should have been granted.

The incident came to the notice of the trial court during a recess early in the trial. Upon the reconvening of court, but before the jury returned to the box, the following proceedings took place:

'The Court: There is an article in this morning's P. I. which states that the defendant is on parole from a conviction for rape in Kitsap County. Now, the jury has that paper, and, if any of the jurors have read it, I think it would be grounds for...