State v. Reeder
| Citation | 285 P.2d 884,46 Wn.2d 888 |
| Decision Date | 14 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 32944,32944 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Thomas August REEDER, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Nixon & Hove, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles O. Carroll, Frank Harrington, Alfred J. Bianchi, Keith M. Callow, Seattle, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence after a verdict of guilty on a charge of second degree murder. Defendant and his wife, Beulah, weree married in 1938. It was his second marriage and her third. She had three children by her previous marriages. Mr. Reeder supported these children, and they took his name. He and his wife operated a resort on Lake Sammamish, and, in addition, he worked on the night shift at Boeings.
In 1952 Mrs. Reeder started working for Milton Price, who owned and operated a concrete block plant located about four miles east of the Lake Washington Floating Bridge. The employer-employee relationship between Price and Mrs. Reeder ripened into an affair and led to domestic discord in the Reeder household. At one time she started a divorce action. She and her husband would separate and then become reconciled. This situation continued for some time. However, Reeder was never able to allay his suspicions. He attempted to follow Price and his wife at various times and would discuss his troubles and suspicions with anyone who would listen to him. He made inquires toward having them arrested. He tried to employ a 'private eye' to obtain evidence of adultery.
On September 26, 1953, while they were living apart, Mrs. Reeder's son, Bob, was in a hospital suffering from a stroke. Mr. and Mrs. Reeder and Bob's wife, Gertrude, visited him at the hospital and after visiting hours were over they drove to a restaurant in Bellevue where they had dinner. Mr. Reeder offered to raise the money necessary to pay the hospital expenses, which offer was gratefully accepted. Mrs. Reeder stated that she would spend the night with her daughter-in-law and Reeder drove them home. He then returned to the restaurant for a cup of coffee before driving back to their resort on Lake Sammamish. As he was driving by the block plant on his way home, he noticed his wife's car (given to her by Price) approaching the plant. There was a small apartment above the boiler room, which Price used as an office and living quarters. Reeder stopped and watched his wife go into the apartment. He then saw Price's truck arrive at the plant.
Reeder went home, changed his clothes, and did some necessary chores around the resort. However, he testified that he could not get the situation out of his mind; that he had thought that he and his wife had become reconciled, and that he then was convinced that she had no idea of reconciliation, so he decided to go back to the plant. He testified that he wanted to obtain evidence of his wife's infidelity in order that he might prosecute her and Price under the adultery statute; that he took his revolver with him because he had been told that Price had a rifle in the apartment and had threatened to shoot him if he (Price) ever caught Reeder 'snooping around.'
Reeder testified that he approached the plant unseen and through the window in the door observed Mrs. Reeder sitting on Price's lap; that he could not hear their conversation, so he went below into the boiler room and stood on a table where he could hear them talk; that the conversation was to the effect that Mrs. Reeder was to make a choice between the two men and also concerned methods of getting the resort property away from him; that some time later Price and Mrs. Reeder went into the bedroom and that he (Reeder) came out of the boiler room and went up the steps and around on the outside to the window of the bedroom; that a blanket had been hung over the window to serve as a shade, but that the window was partially open; that he flashed a light into the room and saw them, in the nude, on a bed, in what he described as a 'compromising position;' that as he flashed his light through the window he dropped it, making a noise; that Price sat up and reached for something; that he thought Price was reaching for the rifle, and he then took his gun from his pocket and shot.
Six shots were fired, two of the bullets striking Price in the back and one in the thigh. He died instantly. As he was shooting, Reeder fell through the window into the bedroom. In doing so, he cut a severe gash in his thumb. He then proceeded to hit Mrs. Reeder over the side of the head with the gun, causing painful injuries. When they determined that Price was dead, he called the sheriff's office. Since his thumb was bleeding profusely, he decided to go home and dress it and told Mrs. Reeder to tell the officers that they could find him there. When the officers arrived at the cabin, the lights were all on. They called him, and he let them in, gave them his gun and made a voluntary statement as to what had transpired.
An information was filed against Reeder, charging him with second degree murder, to which he entered a plea of not guilty. He also entered a special plea of not guilty because of mental irresponsibility at the time of the commission of the act, but alleged further that he had since regained his sanity. At the trial he relied on self-defense and temporary insanity as his defenses. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and defendant appeals. Counsel who represented him during the trial and through the hearing on the motion for new trial are not representing him on appeal.
There are nine assignments of error, but we deem it necessary to consider only one.
As a part of the defense, a number of witnesses testified that defendant's reputation for being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen was good. While defendant was being cross-examined, the deputy prosecutor held in his hand a complaint in a divorce action filed in King county, by his first wife, which action was never brought to trial. He asked:
The trial court allowed this question in view of the insanity plea. However, the court did not permit the divorce complaint to be read and refused to admit it in evidence.
In his closing argument, the deputy prosecutor said:
Again, in arguing that defendant had made threats against Price, he said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Markovich
...are not violated." State v. Monday, 171 Wash.2d 667, 676, 257 P.3d 551 (2011).¶ 27 Markovich analogizes this case to State v. Reeder, 46 Wash.2d 888, 285 P.2d 884 (1955). In Reeder, the defendant was charged with the murder of the man with whom his wife was having an affair. Id. at 889–90, ......
-
State v. Furman
...notwithstanding defense counsel's failure to object on facts far less egregious than those present here. In State v. Reeder, 46 Wash.2d 888, 893-94, 285 P.2d 884 (1955), this court held that in a prosecution for homicide, it was prejudicial misconduct requiring mistrial for the deputy prose......
-
State v. Kirkman
..."`The safeguards which the wisdom of ages has thrown around persons accused of crime cannot be disregarded....'" State v. Reeder, 46 Wash.2d 888, 893, 285 P.2d 884 (1955) (quoting State v. Montgomery, 56 Wash. 443, 447, 105 P. 1035 (1909)). We must not disregard them here. I ...
-
State v. Beck
...which demands no victim, and asks no conviction through the aid of passion, sympathy or resentment." See, also, State v. Reeder, 1955, 46 Wash.2d 888, 285 P.2d 884, and cases cited therein. Thus, if it is the duty of the prosecutor to conduct himself as a quasi-judicial officer in a contest......