State v. Riggle, 2666
| Decision Date | 31 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 2666,2666 |
| Citation | 300 P.2d 567,76 Wyo. 1 |
| Parties | The STATE of Wyoming, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clay RIGGLE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
William G. Watt, D. N. Sherard, Wheatland, Thomas O. Tacy, Council Bluffs, Iowa, for appellant.
A petition for rehearing has been filed herein, and by doing so counsel for defendant have shown a praiseworthy effort to do all that is possible to be done for their client.
We have read the petition for rehearing and the brief that accompanies it with care. However, it covers the same ground which was covered in the original arguments, and we considered all the points involved with meticulous care in our original opinion, as may be noted by the length of it. It would subserve no good purpose to go over them again and attempt to find additional reasons for the conclusions reached. We might, however, mention just a few matters. Counsel say that to be guilty of premeditation, defendant must have had time to deliberate. The trial court so instructed the jury. True, the jealousy of the defendant and the excitement incident thereto probably continued up to the time of the homicide. The jury had the privilege, if it chose to exercise it, to find that that fact alone should reduce the penalty. This court, as a court of law, has no such privilege, but is bound by the verdict of the jury, if, as a matter of fact, the defendant had time to deliberate, as the testimony shows he had. To lay down a rule that jealousy and the excitement incident thereto prevents, as a matter of law, the infliction of the penalty for first degree murder is--and we think with good reason--contrary to the decisions on the subject. I Warren on Homicide, Permanent Edition, p. 375, says: 'Where a husband kills his wife because of jealousy, or because she is unfaithful, he is guilty of murder in the first degree.' See to the same effect State v. Burns, 148 Mo. 167, 49 S.W. 1005, 71 Am.St.Rep. 588, and note appended. The same rule should, of course, apply to the case at bar. Dr. Whalen's testimony, when he related what defendant told him, discloses no confession of the defendant. In the main, he merely related what defendant testified on the witness stand, and in view of that fact the testimony above mentioned should have helped him with the jury instead of hurting his cause. As to the refusal or failure of the court to instruct the jury as to the rights of the pardon board, while it did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pena v. State, 03-13.
... ... State v. Riggle, 1956, 76 Wyo. 1, 298 P.2d 349, reh. den. 76 Wyo. at 63, 300 P.2d 567, cert.den. 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 384, 1 L.Ed.2d 366; Loy v. State, 1919, ... ...
-
Siler v. State
... ... State v. Riggle, 1956, 76 Wyo. 1, 298 P.2d 349, reh. den. 76 Wyo. at 63, 300 P.2d 567, cert.den. 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 384, 1 L.Ed.2d 366; Loy v. State, 1919, 26 ... ...
-
Stephens v. State
...cert. denied 430 U.S. 956, 97 S.Ct. 1602, 51 L.Ed.2d 806 (1977), which cited State v. Riggle, 76 Wyo. 1, 298 P.2d 349, reh. denied 300 P.2d 567 (1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 384, 1 L.Ed.2d 366 (1957). Furthermore, the rule in Wyoming is that any decision to permit non-testimon......
-
Rodarte v. City of Riverton
... ... 4 The statutes and the ordinances are the appropriate expressions of the State and Federal constitutional guarantee of every citizen's right to due process of law. 5 ... Why ... We must consider society as well. * * *' State v. Riggle, 76 Wyo. 63, 66, 300 P.2d 567, 568 (1956), on petition for rehearing. The People of this land ... ...