State v. Martin
| Decision Date | 16 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | 24991. |
| Citation | 176 Wash. 637,30 P.2d 660 |
| Parties | STATE v. MARTIN. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Kitsap County; H. G. Sutton, Judge.
John E Martin was convicted of murder in second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Henry Clay Agnew, of Seattle, for appellant.
R. W Miller, of Bremerton, for the People.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree on two counts. He appeals from judgment and sentence pronounced on the verdict, assigning error in the admission of evidence in two particulars and the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction submitting the crime of manslaughter to the jury.
Consideration of the latter assignment necessitates a somewhat detailed statement of undisputed facts. Appellant lived alone on a ranch in Kitsap county except at times when he had a hired man or two on the place. Shortly prior to October 25, 1932, two men, known only by the names of Milo and Pete, came to work for him. It was on that day that Milo and Pete were last seen alive. The following morning appellant appeared at the home of a neighbor showing evidences of having been very badly beaten and mauled. He told the neighbor that Milo and Pete had assaulted and robbed him and then disappeared.
The neighbor reported the alleged assault and robbery to the sheriff of Kitsap county, who, after an investigation apparently accepted appellant's story of the affray and the disappearance of Milo and Pete. In February, 1933, however, appellant was taken into custody and questioned. At first he held substantially to his original story, but, when the sheriff announced that he was going to engage in some work of excavation at appellant's ranch, the latter confessed that he had killed the men and buried their bodies on the place behind the barn.
The bodies were exhumed at the place indicated by appellant. An autopsy showed that both men had been shot in the right side of the head; the bullet in each instance being found in the brain near the left ear. Appellant maintained that he shot the men in self-defense.
On the witness stand, he testified that on the night in question he was awakened by some one throwing the bed covers off him; that he looked up and saw Pete standing over him and Milo right behind with a pump gun in his hands; that Pete began to beat him, and that, while he was struggling with Pete, Milo struck him across the back with the pump gun; that in the midst of the mêlée he reached under the mattress and got hold of a revolver with which he first shot Pete and then Milo.
In a long line of cases, from State v. Payne, 10 Wash. 545, 39 P. 157, to State v. Turpin, 158 Wash. 103, 290 P. 824, this court has held that, where the killing of a human being is admitted, the killing is presumed to constitute the crime of murder in the second degree. The burden is on the state to raise the charge to murder in the first degree, and the burden is on the defendant to justify his act or reduce the charge to manslaughter. In the judgment of the jury, appellant failed to justify the killing. In the opinion of the trial court, he failed to present evidence tending to reduce the charge to manslaughter. In this view of the evidence we concur. The appellant testified: 'I am not sorry I got that brute of a Pete, but Milo was a good boy; he was just a tool of this other fellow, and I am sorry that I got him.'
The killing was admittedly intentional. Failing to justify the homicide on the theory of self-defense, appellant was clearly guilty of murder in the second degree. As we read the record, the only other inference to be drawn from the evidence is that appellant shot the men while they were asleep. If the jury had accepted that view, the verdicts would have been guilty of murder in the first degree. It was not error to refuse to submit the crime of manslaughter to the jury.
Coming to error assigned on the admission of evidence, Peele, a witness for the state, in the course of his testimony said ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suggs v. State, 156
...36 Ohio App. 384, 173 N.E. 312; McGee v. State, 206 Tenn. 230, 332 S.W.2d 507; State v. Crawford, 60 Utah 6, 206 P. 717; State v. Martin, 176 Wash. 637, 30 P.2d 660. The eliciting of impeaching evidence that a witness had previously suffered a conviction from which an appeal was pending has......
-
State v. Gallagher
... ... the second degree. The burden is imposed on the state to ... raise the charge of murder in the first degree. The defendant ... has the burden of justifying his act or reducing the charge ... to manslaughter. State v. Martin, 176 Wash. 637, 30 ... P.2d 660; State v. Foley, 174 Wash. 575, 580, 25 ... P.2d 565; State v. Paschall, 197 Wash. 582, 85 P.2d ... 1046 ... Appellant, ... by his plea of self-defense and statement of his purpose, ... admitted that the killing was ... ...
-
State v. Swartos, 37537
...is that of murder in the second degree.' (Italics ours.) State v. Tyree, 143 Wash. 313, 315, 255 P. 382 (1927). In State v. Martin, 176 Wash. 637, 30 P.2d 660 (1934), the defendant testified that he shot two men. This court affirmed the conviction, saying: 'In a long line of cases, from Sta......
-
State v. Lindsey
... ... circumstances ... [187 ... Wash. 369] The assignment as to the evidence of other crimes ... is governed by our decisions in State v. Johnson, ... 141 Wash. 324, 251 P. 589, and State v. Martin, 176 ... Wash. 637, 30 P.2d 660 ... The ... contention that the information was subject to demurrer or ... appellants were entitled to a bill of particulars is answered ... by State v. Price, 173 Wash. 108, 21 P.2d 1038 ... ...