State v. Morey

• Decision Date: 29 January 1894
• Parties: STATE v. MOREY.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

35 P. 655

25 Or. 241

STATE v. MOREY.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 29, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; M.G. Munly, Judge.

George Morey was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Henry E. McGinn, for appellant.

Geo. E Chamberlain, Atty. Gen., and John H. Hall, Dep. Dist. Atty for the State.

BEAN J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Multnomah county of the crime of murder in the first degree in killing one Gus Barry, on the morning of the 15th of January, 1893 by shooting him with a pistol. The proof shows that, previous to the homicide, the deceased, with his wife and Miss Wright his sister-in-law, lived in a building in the city of Portland fronting upon and abutting Clay street, containing three rooms, the one in front being occupied by the deceased and wife as a bedroom, immediately in the rear of which was the sitting room, connecting with this room by double doors. In the rear of the sitting room was another room, occupied by Miss Wright as a bedroom. The prisoner, who seems to have been a suitor of Miss Wright, was requested by her, two or three days before the homicide, at the suggestion of Mrs Barry, to come and stay at the house nights, because the deceased was drinking, and it was feared he might assault and beat his wife, as he sometimes did when under the influence of liquor. On the night of the homicide, the prisoner went to the house about 12:30 or 1 o'clock in the morning, passing in from the street through an alleyway to the rear door, where he was admitted by Miss Wright, of whom he inquired if deceased was in, and, being answered in the negative, said, "I will see for myself." He then walked through the hall, and across the sitting room, to the door of the bedroom of deceased and wife, who were both in bed, opened the door, and immediately thereafter the shooting occurred. It is disclosed from the defendant's own testimony that, up to the time he entered the room of the deceased, nothing had occurred to arouse his passion or disturb his mind in any way. There is some slight variance between the evidence for the state and the defense as to what occurred after the prisoner entered the room, but it is of no consequence on this appeal. The court instructed the jury fully upon the various aspects of the case, and, in so doing, defined particularly and with care the deliberation and premeditation necessary to...