State v. Madison.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1901 |
| Citation | 49 W.Va. 96 |
| Parties | State v. Madison. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1.Criminal Trial Continuance Evidence Material,
To reverse a conviction because of refusal to delay or continue the trial to enable the accused to learn whether evidence exists material to the defense, it must appear clearly that the court abused its discretion, and that its action is plainly erroneous. It must appear that such material evidence existed, and would likely be produced, ana the witness expected to give it must be named, and some reasonable ground must appear for the expectation that the evidence exists and will be produced. A mere hope of finding such evidence, based on no tangible substantial ground, will not do. (p. 97).
2.Prisoner's Character Proper Evidence.
The good character of an accused party in respect of the trait involved in the act imputed to him, where intent is essential to its criminality, is admissible, whether the guilt of tne accused be doubtful or not. (p. 100).
3. Self Defense Character of Deceased.
The bad character of a murdered man is not admissible on the trial of his murderer, where there is no pnysical altercation and no question of self-defense involved in the case. (p. 101).
Error to Circuit Court, Fayette County.
Lud Madison was convicted of murder, and brings error.
Affimed.
E. G. Pierson and B. J. Thrift, for plaintiff in error
Atty, Gen. Eucker and L. C. Anderson, for the State.
Brannon, President:
Lud Madison was sentenced to death by the criminal court of Fayette County for the murder of Peter Suader, and having been refused a writ of error by the judge of the circuit court, obtained such writ from a judge of this Court,
One assignment of error is, that the court did not give the accused time to consult his attorney, but forced him into trial without time to prepare his defense. About three o'clock p. M. the prisoner was asked by the court if he had any counsel, and he said that he understood that a certain law firm had been employed to represent him, and that firm refusing to do so, the court appointed three attorneys to defend the prisoner, one of whom had been appointed by the court several days before, and after spending from fifteen to twenty minutes in private consultation with the prisoner, the attorneys asked the court to give them until the next morning to consult with their client and learn whether witnesses could be found who knew any facts material to the prisoner concerning the homicide; but the court refused to grant the delay, and went on with the trial. It seems to us that the court should have exercised its discretion otherwise; but that is not our question. The question here is whether it is cause for reversal of the judgment. If we could see that any evidence for the accused was in existence or attainable, we might say he was prejudiced by this haste, and we could see some force in this complaint; but not a person was suggested as a probable witness; not one matter which the accused could prove, or expected to prove, as required by law. Hurd's Case, 5 Leigh 715. We cannot reverse when we can see no object to be attained by it. We must have something of substance on which to reverse a solemn trial. If we treat this matter under the law of continuance, this point must be ruled against the prisoner. State v. Lane, 44 W. Va. 781, is much akin to this case, though stronger for a continuance, and it was held in that case that rer fusal of a continuance will not justify reversal, unless plainly erroneous. A continuance must have some tangible ground, some probability that it will further the ends of justice, not a mere desire of postponement, not a mere hope that something may possibly develop for the party's interest, but a well founded belief that evidence will come to light, and that belief must be grounded on known facts. State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729; State v. Maier, Id. 769. We can not only say that the accused gave no ground to enable the court to see that a delay of a few hours would reveal any evidence, but we can go further and say that such delay, or even a continuance for the term, would have done him no good; for when we look at the facts shown, unquestionably, Ave can, to a strong moral certainty, assert that no evidence to defeat or mitigate the charge was attainable. Four colored coal miners roomed in a shanty together, the prisoner, the deceased and Charles and Joe Jordan, The deceased and the prisoner played checkers until bed-time. When they were about to go to bed, as proven by Charles Jordan, Suader asked for a piece of bread, and Madison told him to cook his own bread. Jordan says: "Peter went on in the other room, and Madison says directly. 'I am feeding the bread to the hogs now," and Suader says, 'You do that because you don't want me to have it and Suader says, T don't want none of your damn bread, ' and Madison says, 'Don't you cuss me, ' and he (Suader) says, 'Don't you like it?' and Madison says, 'No, ' and Suader says, 'Don't take it then.' " This represents the sum total of Suader's offense and the whole trouble. Madison had loosed his suspenders for the night, but at once upon this verbal altercation went out, remained nearly an hour, procured a pistol, and returned to the shanty about half after ten o'clock, and found Suader and the two Jordans in bed. Jordan asked him to come to bed, and Madison said no, that he was going' to write a letter to his mother, and he sat down at a table at the foot of Jordan's bed and wrote a letter to his mother, and also a letter to Charles Jordan, who was asleep in the bed. We do not know what the letter to his mother contains, as Jor dan mailed it to her next day, but the one to Jordan was found on the floor by Jordan's bed. It reads:
on the back.
This shows sedate purpose to do the murder. Madison waited till all were asleep, and then shot Suader through the lungs and heart while asleep and helpless, about one o'clock, and fled in the darkness of the night, satchel in hand, and was apprehended at Hinton, in an adjoining county, while walking the railroad track on his way to Virginia, and when arrested gave the officers his name as "Will Howald." In his haste he left the door of the shanty open. He had had several hours to cool after the slight disagreement between him and Suader. He asked the arresting officer where the shooting had been done, and being informed that it was on Laurel Creek, Madison said nothing for a little while, but when the officer asked him why he shot the man, Madison replied, "Because he cursed me." At another time and place, while riding along the road while being conveyed, back to Fayette County, where the murder occurred, Madison confessed to another officer, a. constable of Fayette County, in the presence of a justice, saying, "I shot him because he cursed me." The evidence clearly shows these facts. No one else was present in the shanty. How can we say, with any reason, that Madison could show anything to the contrary? He named no one else as present, suggested no witness or matter which he could prove. How can we say he was prejudiced by this delay? This murder was in May, and Madison was arrested next day, and the trial began 26th of October, lasting three days. Thus, Madison and his friends had months to prepare the defence, to learn facts, to summon witnesses. It is a rule that a, man cannot have a continuance without showing diligence in preparation.
A second assignment of error is, that the court did not give compulsory process for Harrah as a witness, and forced the trial without ins presence. This assignment is unsustained by the facts. The court did award process for this witness on the first day of the trial, adjourned it till the next morning,...
To continue reading
Request your trial