State v. Palmer

• Decision Date: 14 March 1890
• Citation: 20 A. 6,65 N.H. 216
• Parties: STATE v. PALMER.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

20 A. 6

65 N.H. 216

STATE

v. PALMER.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Rockingham.

March 14, 1890.

Exceptions from Rockingham county.

Indictment of James Palmer for the murder of Henry T. Whitehouse, who was assistant engineer at the electric light station in Portsmouth, and was murdered May 27, 1888. The defendant was engineer at the same station until some time in February, 1888. Walter Raitt testified: "About the 1st of last May, I met the defendant, and asked him if he was at the light station now. He said, 'No;' he had had some trouble about things being stole. Them fellows had blowed on him, and he would fix them for it. I had been at the light station six or eight times at night. Reagan, Whitehouse, and the defendant used to be there. "The following testimony was received, subject to the defendant's exception: Fred S. Palmer: "Am superintendent of the Electric Light Co. The defendant was engineer. Whitehouse was his assistant, and Reagan was fireman. Before the defendant left, I had a talk with him about a change of hours, so that Whitehouse would begin work at 8 o'clock in the evening instead of six. He thought he ought to have Whitehouse to help him from six to eight. I thought he showed some feeling about the change. He left Saturday morning at one o'clock, about the 5th of February, 1888. He left of his own free will, as a result of a notice I gave him. He was discharged to leave in two weeks or before. He had the option. I intended to discharge both him and Whitehouse. Thought I could get one man to do what they were both doing for less wages than I was paying the defendant, and told him so; and he said he wouldn't stay for less pay than he was receiving. The morning after he left the key to one of the engines had been struck and driven in, so that the wheel couldn't turn over. I saw the defendant, and told him to fix the engine, or I should put him behind the bars before two hours. He went and fixed it. After he left I got a search-warrant, and got the defendant and Sheriff Coffin at my office, and accused the defendant of taking articles from the station. I told Coffin we must go and search the defendant's house. Then the defendant acknowledged taking them, and didn't want his house searched. Think this was about February 11th. I therefore went with the defendant, without Coffin, to the defendant's house. He presented his tool-box, and I examined it. I had no mark to identify things, but laid out what I thought were ours, but came to a pair of pliers I had marked. I proved them to him by the mark. Told him to bring the rubber hose he had taken, and he brought it. May 23d—the Wednesday before Whitehouse was killed—I went to the defendant's house again with Coffin and Whitehouse, and searched for stolen articles. Whitehouse was active in the search, and identified some things. We took some things away. The defendant's mother was there. The defendant was not there." Dennis Reagan; "I was fireman at the light station. The morning after the defendant left there was trouble with the machinery. It was Whitehouse's business to take the engine apart and clean it. At this time he could not turn it over. Fred S. Palmer was informed of it." Edward D. Coffin: "Am sheriff, and keeper of the jail. When the defendant was put in jail, I searched him, and took everything he had. Afterwards I searched, and found a razor and a gun wrench in his pocket. A hole, perhaps eight inches by ten, had been broken in the wire netting of his out side cell window since he had been there. There was another prisoner in the same cell." He also testified: "About the 23d of May—the Wednesday before the murder—T went to the defendant's house with Fred S. Palmer and Whitehouse, and searched it. Whitehouse seemed to do the most. He was the most prominent in searching. The defendant's mother went round with us. Fred S. Palmer gave me a schedule of the articles the defendant was accused of stealing. I took it, and gave it to the defendant's mother, and told her to give it to James, and to tell him to bring the things to me. I saw the defendant the next Friday night at the depot at half past seven, May 25th. He came to me, and said he had been to the jail and my office to see me, that he never took any of the things in the schedule, and never took anything, but that Palmer (Fred S.) and Whitehouse got this thing up to ruin his reputation. Said I: 'Jim, it looks well for you to come down and see me, and I am going to give you some advice; that is, that you leave this town, and go away somewhere,' and go to work at his trade; that I had a warrant for his arrest, and if he would go away I would not use it. He thanked me. Spoke earnestly about Palmer and Whitehouse getting it up, etc. * * * The netting on the window of the cell was put there to prevent things being passed in to the prisoners by their friends outside." Mrs. Frances Rutter, the defendant's mother, a witness called by him, testified that on the day the house was searched by Coffin she gave the defendant the memorandum which Coffin left there for him, and told him Coffin and Palmer had been there, and described the other man, and the defendant said it was Whitehouse. The stenographer's notes of all the testimony may be used by the defendant as part of the case. Judgment having been rendered on the verdict against the defendant, he filed the foregoing bill of exceptions, which was allowed.

D. Barnard, Atty. Gen., and S. W. Emery, for the State. G. Marsten and C. Page, for the defendant.

SMITH, J. The testimony of F. S. Palmer, Reagan, and Coffin, as to the conversations with the defendant, and as to matters occurring before the murder, was relevant, if it tended to show a motive for the commission of the crime with which he was charged; and the question is, did it tend to show motive? Their testimony was inadmissible for the purpose of discrediting the defendant. His character could not be attacked by showing that he had been guilty of other crimes or offenses. It was not competent to prove that he committed the crime of larceny or malicious mischief for the purpose of showing that he was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial. State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245. But, upon well-settled principles, the state was entitled to introduce any evidence having a legal tendency to prove any material fact in issue, notwithstanding it might tend to prove the commission of another and separate offense. It is not a valid objection to evidence, otherwise competent, that it tends to prove the prisoner guilty of a distinct and different felony. Com. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451, 458. Thus evidence of other offenses is admissible for the purpose of proving malice, guilty knowledge, intent, motive, and the like. State v. Lapage, supra, 288, 293-295; Rosc. Crim. Ev. 81-84; 1 Whart. Crim. Law, §§ 640, 693. Upon an indictment for murder, evidence of former grudges and antecedent threats is received, because it tends to show malice in the defendant against the deceased. 1 Phil. Ev. 169; Rosc. Crim. Ev. 71. Such evidence is admissible because it supplies a motive for the act. The...