State v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 10 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 16161 |
| Citation | 125 N.E. 109,100 Ohio St. 66 |
| Parties | The State Of Ohio v. Morgan |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Criminal law - Murder it, first degree - Deliberate and premeditated malice established, when - Self-defense - Precluded by defendant's conduct, when.
Mr. D A. Webster, prosecuting attorney, and Messrs. Newcomer & Gebhard, for plaintiff in error.
Mr Charles R. Scott, for defendant in error.
BY THE COURT. The defendant in error, James Morgan, in July, 1918 was convicted in the court of common pleas of Williams county, Ohio, of murder in the 'first degree, without recommendation of mercy. Motion for new trial was overruled and sentence of death was imposed. On proceedings in error in the court of. appeals the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. On application of the state, this court admitted the case for review.
The offense for which Morgan was tried and convicted was the killing of Alexander Grant, the conductor of a Wabash railroad passenger train, on which Morgan was a passenger running be-tween Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. Morgan's real destination was Detroit, although the ticket which he purchased would have carried him only to Adrian, Michigan, a city about Forty miles southwest of Detroit.
The killing occurred at Montpelier, Ohio, a station about forty miles southwest of Adrian. The car on which the conductor met his death was at the time located on a switch, awaiting the arrival of a train from St. Louis, which on the day of the tragedy arrived at Montpelier forty minutes behind its schedule time. The car, so switched, was to be made a part of the St. Louis train.
The main facts in the case may be said to be undisputed.
The defendant, Morgan, some thirty minutes before the arrival of the train at Montpelier, entered the toilet compartment of the car on which he was riding, and remained there until its arrival at Montpelier, and perhaps twenty minutes longer while the car was there stationary. He had been self-confined in the toilet room very near an hour immediately previous to the killing.
The judgment of the common pleas was reversed by the court of appeals, not for any error of the trial judge in the admission or rejection of testimony, nor for any error in the charge to the jury, but on the sole ground that the evidence in the cause was insufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the necessary ingredient of first degree murder, to-wit, deliberate and premeditated malice, existed in the mind of the accused when the fatal shot was fired. The defendant at the trial entered the plea of self-defense. A careful reading and consideration of all the testimony in the case leads the court to differ very widely with the court of appeals on the subject of deliberation and premeditation. Indeed, we are persuaded by the testimony of the accused that this necessary ingredient was undoubtedly present at the moment of the killing.
It appears that the accused had visited the toilet compartment quite a number of times between Chicago and Montpelier, each time carrying with him a little satchel.
While it is very doubtful, it may be granted that these visits were for a lawful purpose. On the occasion of the last visit to the toilet, and after he had remained there over thirty minutes, the conductor of the train knocked and called on the occupant Morgan to unlock the door and come out. This demand elicited no response. The conductor, in the discharge of his duty, after vainly attempting some two or three times to persuade Morgan to re-tire, finally left the car and repaired to a restaurant in the station where he obtained his evening meal.
In the meantime things were occurring in the toilet room that furnish the conclusive proof of premeditation on the part of Morgan. He prepared to do the very thing that resulted in the conductor's instant death. In the first place he removed from the satchel a leather belt and holster, which he strapped about his body. He next took a loaded revolver from the satchel and placed it in the holster. At this moment he had on his person over forty cartridges. Such was the preparation of the defendant immediately after he had been commanded to unlock the toilet room door, and while the conductor was eating.
These things occurred about fifteen minutes before the killing. When asked why he took the belt, holster and pistol from the satchel, his reply was "I put it...
To continue reading
Request your trial