State v. Priest

• Decision Date: 29 March 1918
• Citation: 103 A. 359,117 Me. 223
• Parties: STATE v. PRIEST.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

103 A. 359

117 Me. 223

STATE

v. PRIEST.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 29, 1918.

Appeal and Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Piscataquis County, at Law.

Willis M. Priest was convicted of murder, and from a denial of the motion for new trial, he appeals, and also brings exceptions. Appeal dismissed, motion for new trial denied, exceptions overruled, and judgment for the State.

Argued before CORNISH, C. J., and SPEAR, HANSON, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

Guy H. Sturgis, Atty. Gen., and James H. Hudson, Co. Atty., of Guilford, for the State. Leon G. C. Brown, of Milo, and John S. Williams, of Guilford, for respondent.

CORNISH, C. J. In the early evening of Tuesday, March 14, 1916, the body of one George Herbert was discovered by two neighbors lying on the floor of hiscamp, ">face downward,in ">a pool of blood. This camp was located at Rand Covein ">Lake View Plantation,at a ">remote and somewhat secluded spot between Schoodic Lakeand ">a branch of the Bangor & Aroostook Railroad, known as the Medford cut-off. Herbertwas ">last seen alive about noon of the previous day. He was a man 72 or 73 years of age, whose history and antecedents were unknown, and who had lived alone in this camp for several years, a recluse, of quiet habits and somewhat feeble health. He was reputed to have considerable money about him, and the report was not without foundation, as subsequent eventsproved. ">The room, 12 by 16 feet in size, in which Herbert was lying, was found to bein ">great disorder, showing not only evidences of a struggle, but the apparent rifling of its contents. Chairs were overturned, the beddingand ">clothing were scattered on the floor, stains and spatters of blood appeared on the table, the stove, the floor, and the walls, while the shade at one window had been drawn down by a blood-stained hand. Mr. Herbert's head was bruised in several places, his scalp broken, and above the left ear his skull was shattered for a space of about 3 inches in length by 1 1/2 inches in width. Death was due, as the physicians testified, to this fracture of the skull and the consequent loss of blood. Fragments of a broken bottle upon some of which were found bloodand ">matted hair were scattered over the floor, probably the instrument with which the fatal blow was struck. A pailof ">water anda ">blood-marked towel showed where the perpetrators had washed and wiped their hands after the scene had closed. The tracks of two men in the deep snow led from the camp to the shore of the lake, and thence up the lake for a considerable distance until they reached and followed the railroad track. These were, at the time, the only clues.

The officers and a detective promptly took up the case, and the detective ferreted out many facts that pointed to the guilt of the respondent. On july 19, 1916, he was arrested in Portland. After being taken to the police station he was interrogated by the detective in presence of police officers, and his answers connected him directly with the tragedy. Another young man, named Roy Wood, was his accomplice, as he stated, and this accomplice has never been apprehended. The evidence leads to the reasonable inference that he fled to Canada the next day after Herbert was killed and has never been found, although extended search has been made for him. The next day, July 20th, the respondent was taken to Dover, and at the Dover courthouse was interrogated at length by the county attorney. This examination was taken down by a stenographer, and a transcript of the notes was subsequently signed by the respondent. The admissibility of these two confessions, or the statements made by Priest on these two occasions, was resisted by his counsel, but they were admitted by the court, and the exceptions on this branch of the case will be considered later.

At the March term, 1917, of the Supreme Judicial Court in Piscataquis county, the respondent was tried on an indictment for murder and convicted by the jury. The case is now before the law court on appeal from the decision of the justice before whom it was tried, denying a motion for new trial (R. S. c. 136, § 28), and on exceptions.

Appeal.

The evidence, covering nearly 700 printed pages, has been examined with care, and as a result the court has no hesitancy in holding that the verdict is fully justified. The respondent took the stand and testified in his own behalf, and from his testimony alone, balanced in the judgment of reasoning men, conviction could well have followed. Out of his own mouth, as well as the mouths of others, he was condemned. True, on some points he attempted to deny certain facts or to evade the consequences of certain acts, but his attempted explanations did not explain, and his attempted excuses did not excuse. The intelligence of the jury pierced the veil, and separated the true from the false and the probable from the improbable.

Viewing the tragedy in the light of all the testimony and the circumstances, it is obvious that the respondent and his companion Wood left their home in Milo, where they had both been at work until within a short time, with the deliberate and well-formed intention of going to Rand Cove, a distance of about 20 miles, and obtaining money from Herbert, both being in need of it, as Priest testified. Robbery was undoubtedly their purpose, but in this case robbery unfortunately culminated in homicide. The respondent's familiarity with the premises, having worked nearby Herbert's camp during the previous summer, fall, and early winter, his knowledge of Herbert's solitary life and reputed possession of money, the circuitous route taken by them on Monday, March 13th, to reach the camp from Milo, partly by rail and partly on foot 4 miles across Schoodic Lake in the midst of a heavy snowstorm, the scene in the camp after their arrival, two young men each about 20 years of age over against one of 73, the condition of the camp after the struggle, the nature of the wounds that caused his death, the heartless abandonment of him in his desperate or dying condition, although help could have easily been secured, the route of hurried departure designed to escape detection, their studied separation after the train was taken, the stealing from Herbert's camp of $400, as the fruit of their wicked enterprise, its equal division between them soon after they left, the retention by the respondent of his share, and the sending of a little over $100 to his friend, Ferris, in Portland, as he admits, or $150, as Ferris testifies, with instructions for Ferris to keep it for him, and if he did not call for it in 10 or 15 years to keep it for himself, his subsequent going to Portland, where he spent his ill-gotten gains, and where he was finally arrested, all combine to prove beyond any reasonable doubt a premeditated and concerted robbery, ending in the brutal murder of an innocent, unprotected, and somewhat enfeebled old man.

The claim of the respondent that he simply went to Herbert to borrow money with which to meet an outstanding and pressing bill, while on their way to Millinocket for work, that Herbert twice treated them to liquor, and himself drank with them, then suddenly, without the slightest provocation, became seemingly crazy, and, pulling a revolver from his bed, threatened to kill them, and when this weapon was wrested from him he seized Priest by the throat, threw him twice upon his knees, and a severe struggle ensued, Herbert having the better of the assault until Wood seized a stick of wood and struck Herbert over the head, felling him to the floor, this claim of self-defense needs no other refutation than the number and age of the respective parties, the entire absence of any marks, bruises, or even Scratches upon Wood or Priest the next morning after the affray, and the condition of Herbert as left by them, with bruised and shattered skull, lying in his own blood. The "poor poor dumb mouths" speak to disprove the flimsy excuse of self-defense.

The single question before the law court on the appeal is whether, in view of all the testimony, the jury were warranted in believing beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore in declaring by their verdict, that the respondent was guilty of murder. State v. Lambert, 97 Me. 57, 53 Atl....