State v. Hossack

• Decision Date: 09 April 1902
• Citation: 116 Iowa 194,89 N.W. 1077
• Parties: STATE v. HOSSACK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

116 Iowa 194

89 N.W. 1077

STATE

v.HOSSACK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Warren county; James D. Gamble, Judge.

Defendant was accused of the murder of her husband, John Hossack. The indictment charged the crime in the first degree. There was a jury trial, and from a verdict of guilty, and the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment thereon, defendant appeals. Reversed.Henderson & Berry, for appellant.

Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WATERMAN, J.

The defendant and John Hossack were married in the year 1867 in the state of Indiana, and almost immediately came to this state, and resided up to the time of the tragedy on a farm in Warren county. Nine children were born to them, five of whom were at home when their father's death occurred. Hossack was killed in his bed on the night of December 2d of the year 1900. He received two blows, either of which was sufficient to cause his death. One blow was with a sharp instrument on the right side of his head, just above the eye. Its effect was to open a gash in his skull more than five inches in length, from which the brain substance oozed. The other blow was with a blunt instrument. It alighted just below the wound we have mentioned, and crushed in the skull. The last-described injury was inflicted after the other. It is the theory of the state that an ax was used, and that, after the cut was given, it was reversed, and the second blow was struck with the head of the weapon. The family life of the Hossacks had not been pleasant, perhaps the husband was most to blame. He seems to have been somewhat narrow-minded, and quite stern in his determination to control all family matters. However this may have been, it is an unquestioned fact that for a long time dissensions existed between husband and wife, and the latter made complaints a number of times to neighbors. On one occasion, some years prior to the tragedy, she went to the house of one Haynes, and wanted him to come and quiet her husband, saying: “He will kill some of us before morning.” Haynes replied: “I wouldn't touch Hossack. There is a law for a man that abuses his family.” To this she responded: “I don't want you to touch him unless you finish him.” To other persons she used such expressions, in speaking of her husband, as these: “It would be God's blessing if he were gone.” “Oh! why don't the good Lord remove him out of our way?” She complained at times that he had used physical violence to her, striking her with his hand and with a stove lid. Their troubles culminated on Thanksgiving Day, 1899. In consequence of the difficulty at that time, the wife left the home, and went to the home of a married daughter. There was some talk of a separation and division of property; but finally three neighbors were called in, and through their efforts all difficulties were apparently healed, and there was a general agreement between husband, wife, and children that they would live in peace and harmony in the future. That the wife did not place strong reliance upon the pledges made by her husband at this time is shown by the fact that she privately requested one of the neighbors to remain all night, expressing the fear that her husband would make trouble again as soon as they were gone. It is true, however, that with a single exception, next to be noticed, no more of their family difficulties were made public, and the children all testify that dissensions ceased after this time. A witness says that some two months after this reconciliation, when questioned as to her home affairs, the wife wept and said, “It is just as bad as it ever was.” On Thanksgiving Day, just preceding the tragedy, there was a family reunion at Hossack's house. The feast customary to the occasion was partaken of, and good feeling seemed to prevail on the part of all. On the following Saturday, Hossack and his youngest son, Ivan, had been to the coal bank. They returned about 4 o'clock in the afternoon. So far as known, there was no difficulty between the parents on this day. Shortly after dark the different members retired for the night. We attach the plan of the house which appears in the record, as it will conduce to a clearer understanding of subsequent events.

IMAGE

The son Will, with his sisters Cassie and May, slept upstairs in rooms reached by the staircase shown in the kitchen. James and Ivan occupied the room adjoining that of their parents. The only direct evidence of the events of this bloody night preceding the injuries which were inflicted on Hossack comes from defendant. Without detailing all previous matters, it is enough to say that she and her husband went to bed together; she lying in front, or on the east side of the bed, which stood with its head towards the south. Her husband, manifestly, was lying on his left side, or at least with the right side of his head uppermost. The wife lay upon her right side, facing the door. Her story is that she was roused from her sleep after midnight by a noise such as would be made by striking two boards together. She jumped out of bed, went into the sitting room, saw a light shining on the north wall, and then heard the door closed which opened on the porch. She went to it, and found it was not pulled entirely shut. Then, hearing groans or strange sounds from her husband, she called the children down from upstairs, telling them that some one had been in the house, and she thought their father was hurt. When the children came down, which was at once, a light was struck. Their mother was clothed only in a chemise and drawers. Together they all proceeded to the father's room, and found him in the condition we have described.

It now becomes necessary to go back to the preceding afternoon, and gather up some scattered circumstances which have a bearing on the issue of fact; for it is one of the strong contentions of appellant's counsel that the testimony does not support the verdict. After Ivan's return from the coal bank, he found the ax at the wood pile; and, as it looked like a storm, he carried it to the granary, and placed it therein. On the morning after the tragedy it was found under the granary. Some dried blood was found on the handle of the ax, but it does not appear to have been human blood, and it is shown satisfactorily that the Thanksgiving turkey was killed with it but three days previous. Three hairs were also taken from the ax, but this was not until it had been handled considerably; having been taken from under the granary, and laid for a moment on the hogpen, and then replaced under the granary, where numerous hairs of some kind were upon the ground. There is some evidence that the family dog was very stupid, acting as though he were drugged, shortly after the murder. No blood was found on the clothing of defendant, except a few drops on the back of the right sleeve of her chemise, and just below the right shoulder, and a smear lower down. We may dismiss the matter of the blood on the ax, about which much is said by counsel, from our consideration. We take up now the other facts. There is some evidence of a motive on defendant's part to commit this crime, and no evidence of any motive on the part of another human being. It is true, counsel for appellant have much to say about the reconciliation of a year previous, and treat it as wiping all bitterness out of the heart of this woman, and replacing it with love and affection. No doubt, the interference of neighbors induced these people thereafter to be more careful in making their troubles known, but the jury may have thought it hardly possible the ill feeling of years was so easily removed. Besides, we have the testimony of one witness to defendant's statement that dissensions existed after that time. We need not analyze defendant's story. It is enough to say the jury may well have believed her guilty, if the story was untrue, and the evidence before them was sufficient to justify disbelief in it. But some testimony was improperly admitted, tending to show the family ax was the weapon used in committing the crime; and, as will be readily seen, that was an important circumstance in aid of the state's case. What conclusion would have been reached on the facts had not this evidence been received, we have no means of knowing. The evidence will be given later, with our reasons for believing it inadmissible under the conditions existing at the time it was offered. It is sufficient now to say the case against the defendant was wholly circumstantial, and she could not but be prejudiced when proof of any material circumstance was strengthened or aided by other than competent legal evidence.

1. Three...