State v. Much, 21963.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Citation156 Wash. 403,287 P. 57
Docket Number21963.
PartiesSTATE v. MUCH.
Decision Date17 April 1930

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Wm. A. Huneke, Judge.

Archie Frank Much (sometimes spelled Moock), alias James Murphy, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

MITCHELL C.J., and FRENCH, J., dissenting in part.

John F Aiken and Justin C. Maloney, both of Spokane, for appellant.

Charles W. Greenough and Louis F. Bunge, both of Spokane, for the State.

HOLCOMB J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, the death penalty assessed by the jury, and, after denial of his motion for a new trial, was sentenced by the trial court in conformity with the verdict of the jury. From the judgment and sentence so imposed, he appeals.

The information in one count charged the crime as having been committed in Spokane county, Wash., on or about September 22 1928, by appellant, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without excuse or justification, and with a premeditated design to effect the death of one Catherine Clark with a hatchet held in the hand of appellant, by repeatedly striking Catherine Clark in the head, from which mortal wounds were inflicted of which she then and there died.

On Sunday, September 23, 1928, two residents of Spokane went with their families in their automobiles to an unoccupied ranch known as the 'Forquer Place,' or the 'Davis ranch' in Spokane county, about eighteen miles northeast of Spokane, to pick fruit. Late in the evening when they were about to return, while one of them was looking for water in a ravine, on one side of which runs a county road which crosses the ravine by a low bridge, he discovered the dead body of a woman a short distance below the bridge, screened from view on either side by bushes and vegetation, who later proved to be Catherine Clark of Boston, Mass.

The Davis ranch is a lonely and unfrequented spot, but appellant had become familiar with it by having been taken to it by one of the witnesses who discovered the murdered woman, about a week prior to the murder. The families hurried back to Spokane and reported their discovery to the sheriff's force. Two deputies thereupon returned to the scene of the crime with the two male witnesses of the party making the discovery. It was then dark, but by the use of flash lights and the head lights of the sheriff's car an examination was made of the made of the body and surroundings. The woman had died from blows on the forehead above the nose, which had driven her skull bones into the brain. There were many other bruises and abrasions about the head, face and neck. In fact, her face and head were terribly mutilated. There was a blood splotch within a few feet of the road south of the ravine, and five or six more blood splotches visible in the grass between the road and the ravine. The body had been rolled or dragged through a barbed wire fence between the road and the ravine, which process had left fresh scratches on the legs of the body. Not far from the body, in the bottom of the ravine, was found a shingler's hatchet, and as one of the men bent over to observe it he discovered it was his own hatchet or hand axe, which was a peculiar bent and deformed instrument which this witness had carried in his car. This witness, Tyree, made a startled exclamation upon seeing the hand axe and stated it was his own. He exclaimed, 'My God! Winkleblack, That is my hand axe' or 'hatchet.' The officers then questioned this man and learned that about a week prior to September 23 appellant had asked for and procured the loan of his car for some time during the week. On Saturday, the 22d, appellant's little girl came to his place with a note from her father to him asking if appellant could get the car that evening. He consented, and appellant himself got the car that evening promising to return it in a couple of hours. He did not return it until the next morning. The next morning, upon learning that the owner of the car and his neighbor and families were going up to the old orchard again that day, he endeavored to rent the car again for the day, but without success. Upon returning to Spokane, the officers and this man who owned the hatchet drove to his home and there searched his car and his home to see if they could find his hatchet, but it could not be found. They then proceeded to the home of appellant at 2217 East Hartson avenue, spokane, where he had been residing for some time. There they learned that appellant and his wife had gone to a church some blocks distant. On the way to the church they met appellant and wife returning home. Appellant was taken aside and questioned, and admitted to the officers the facts relating to the borrowing or renting of the other man's car. He then told them a very ingenious and highly improbable story about having met a 'Jim,' or James Murphy, at Hedlund's mill, where they worked, and had struck up a casual acquaintance with Murphy during lunch hours; that Murphy informed him, about a year later, that he wanted to correspond with women with a view to marriage and desired to have his mail come to appellant's house so that his friends would not know it; that Murphy was to inherit a fortune from the estate of his father on condition that he was married by a certain time; that Murphy had finally got in touch with Mrs. Clark and made arrangements for her to come from Boston to Spokane to marry him; that under the arrangements she was to come to appellant's home; that Murphy was not able to meet her upon her arrival and he had borrowed the other man's car and taken Mrs. Clark over into Idaho and had met Murphy and one 'Jake,' whose other name he did not know, on the road; that they produced some beer and after a drink or two appellant passed out; that he lay alongside his car and did not awake until the following morning; that when he did awake Mrs. Clark, Murphy, and Jake were gone; that he then returned to Spokane and returned the other man's car, but made no report to the sheriff or any one else as to what had happened.

The officers and appellant and his wife then proceeded to appellant's home, and his wife there admitted that appellant had brought back with him from Idaho Mrs. Clark's hat box containing her clothes and belongings. She stated that after Mrs. Clark's arrival she was brought to he Moock home by appellant and exhibited to Mrs. Moock a picture of herself in an oval frame, and stated to her that it was her bank and that she kept all her money in the frame. Appellant was then taken to the mortuary where he identified the body as that of Mrs. Catherine Clark, whom he had taken over into Idaho. Upon further questioning he described Murphy as a man about his own size, but light complexioned. He admitted that he had written one letter to a matrimonial agency in Illinois looking to an enrollment, but denied writting any other letters. He stated that on Friday night, preceding the murder, a strange boy accosted him on the street who asked him if he were Mr. Moock; that the boy stated he had a letter to deliver to Mrs. Clark and one for Moock; that the letter to Moock advised that Murphy was sick and could not come after Mrs. Clark, and requested Moock to bring her over into Idaho to the place of a Mrs. Carlton, represented to be Murphy's sister, and that there the marriage would be consummated. On Monday, appellant was taken over into Idaho, where he claimed he and Mrs. Clark had met the alleged Murphy, but was vague and indefinite as to the road. He finally pointed out a spot where he said he had lain all night, but no evidence of such lodging could be found. On September 24, a little girl eight years of age, while on her way to school, found Mrs. Clark's purse under a bush on a street about five blocks from appellant's home. Inside of the purse was the oval picture frame. On September 25, officers went to the home of appellant and searched the garden outside of the house. Digging in two places where the dirt had been freshly disturbed, one of them discovered a package wrapped in a newspaper containing letters which were introduced in evidence at the trial, which were the letters that had been written by the supposed James Murphy from 2217 East Harton avenue, Spokane, to Mrs. Clark. The other officer, about the same time, discovered another package wrapped in a newspaper buried in the ground containing thirteen $100 bills, one $50 bill, and two $20 bills. This package and the money was received in evidence at the trial. This package of currency, when folded once, fits snugly into the oval picture frame between the picture and the back of the frame. Two savings bank deposit books, which had been issued in the name of Catherine Clark, were also found in he hat box, which showed withdrawals of balances aggregating an amount that, after deducting the reasonable expense of her trip from Boston to Spokane, would approximate the $1,390 found in appellant's garden.

Appellant admitted that he sent two money orders to the matrimonial agency for catalogues, and wrote the two letters therefor. As to the letters of the alleged Murphy to Mrs. Clark, appellant claimed that Murphy always brought him the originals of the letters and appellant copied them for Murphy so that they would never be in Murphy's handwriting in the event of a breach of promise suit against Murphy. He claimed that he had written most of them in Murphy's car parked under a railroad viaduct or at Manito Park, and admitted that he had written the last letter to Mrs. Clark, which he claimed the messenger boy had brought him, at Liberty Park on his way home.

All the responses to the letters written over the name of James Murphy were received at the home of appellant above given. Appellant testified...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...and heeded not the constitutional provision that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. In State v. Much, supra, we held that §§ 2237 to 2240-1, inclusive, which provided for the issuance of search warrants in certain cases and that it was unlawfu......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 16, 1943
    ...rule therein laid down was adhered to in State v. Thomas, 183 Wash. 643, 49 P.2d 28, 30, in which this court said: ' In State v. Much, 156 Wash. 403, 287 P. 57, 60, where the defendant was charged with murder, officers went his home and, digging in his yard, found letters and money which we......
  • State v. McCollum, 28809.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 27, 1943
    ...be reversed. The only authority upon which the socalled majority opinion in the case at bar is based is our opinion in State v. Much, 156 Wash. 403, 287 P. 57, in which we disregarded the provision of the constitution securing the right of the people against unlawful searches and seizures a......
  • State v. Roberts, 65512-0.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • December 14, 2000
    ...either murder in the first degree, or nothing.'" State v. Biondic, 47 Wash.2d 593, 595, 288 P.2d 845 (1955)(quoting State v. Much, 156 Wash. 403, 410, 287 P. 57 (1930)); see also State v. Ortiz, 119 Wash.2d 294, 313-14, 831 P.2d 1060 (1992). This rule has been applied when the evidence clea......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT