State v. Sargood

• Citation: 58 A. 971,77 Vt. 80
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
• Decision Date: 15 September 1904
• Parties: STATE v. SARGOOD et al.

58 A. 971

77 Vt. 80

STATE

v. SARGOOD et al.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Bennington.

Sept. 15, 1904.

Exceptions from Bennington County Court; Watson, Judge.

Eugene Sargood and another were convicted of poisoning certain colts belonging to another, and they bring exceptions. Affirmed.

Argued before ROWELL, C. J., and TYLER, MUNSON, STAFFORD, and HASELTON, JJ.

J. J. Shakshober, O. M. Barber, and F. C. Archibald, for the State.

Batchelder & Bates and D. A. Guiltinan, for respondents.

STAFFORD, J. The respondents were charged with having killed with poison two colts belonging to a neighbor. They were tried together and convicted, and the case is here upon exceptions taken during the course of the trial.

Upon the part of the state a story was developed substantially as follows: In the small village of East Arlington lived Sanford Hicks and his wife, occupying a house upon the street. On the same premises was a barn in which Blair, who lived near by, kept the colts under an arrangement with Hicks. In the same village lived Sargood, one of the respondents. The other respondent, Doyle, was in and about the village more or less. Sargood was ambitious to get the Hicks place, and turn it into a hotel where he might sell liquors under a license to be procured from the authorities. He had succeeded in his negotiations so far as Hicks himself was concerned, but had found his plan blocked by Mrs. Hicks, whose consent was necessary, and could not be obtained. Sargood had been selling liquor to Blair in violation of law, and believed, as he expressed it, that "Blair had gone back on him," and so he was bent on "getting even with Blair." Doyle had no apparent interest in Sargood's plan in respect to the Hicks house, and no ill will against Blair. He was friendly to Sargood, and not unwilling to please him. On the 3d day of April, in the afternoon, Blair discovered that his colts were sick. The next day they were worse, and were found to have been poisoned with parts green, some of which remained in their feed boxes. They died the morning of the next day, which was Sunday, the 5th. Detectives were employed, and some time later procured an admission from Doyle, while he was in liquor, that the poisoning had been done by him at the instigation of Sargood. Very soon after the colts were poisoned, Sargood attempted to direct suspicion towards Mrs. Hieks, and advised Blair to have her arrested. In this he did not succeed. Sunday, the 5th, he went to the Hicks house, and was in the kitchen, where a considerable number of unwashed dishes had accumulated upon the table. Into some of the teacups, the circumstances tended to show, he put poison so mixed as to resemble tea, hoping that Mrs. Hicks would be poisoned, and so removed from his way, or else that her husband would be poisoned, and the crime laid at her door, and the same result accomplished. Hicks did take some of the poison into his mouth, but detected it before it was swallowed. No witness testified to seeing the poison placed in the feed boxes or in the teacups. The theory advanced by the state was that Sargood was the moving spirit throughout, and that Doyle was his tool; that Sargood was moved by the desire to get rid of Mrs. Hicks' opposition, and caused the colts to be poisoned with the hope and expectation that Mrs. Hicks would be held responsible, and, failing in this, attempted the poisoning of the Hickses themselves; that incidentally he was gratifying his grudge against Blair, but that his principal motive was the ulterior one just stated.

One of the chief exceptions is that which was taken to the admission of any and all evidence touching the attempted poisoning of the Hickses. This evidence, it is urged, was irrelevant, as tending to establish a distinct crime unconnected with the one charged. On the other hand, it is claimed by the state to be relevant, as tending to establish a motive for the crime charged, and to identify Sargood as the criminal. It is all a question of relevancy. That the accused has committed another crime is usually irrelevant. It is relevant only when it tends to prove that he committed the crime charged. It does tend to prove that he committed the crime charged when it tends to prove that he was actuated by a motive, or entertained a plan or purpose, which would naturally prompt him to commit it. Here the second crime followed close upon the heels of the first. If it was committed by Sargood, it tended to establish and make clear the motive he had for poisoning the colts, which, without it, might seem doubtful and obscure, and so tended to identify the culprit. We do not understand that it is necessary that, when the first crime was committed, the purpose to commit the second should be already formed and entertained. It is enough if the commission of the second is so related to the first as to shed a light upon it which may enable the trier to see how, why, or by whom it was committed. We think that the evidence was relevant and admissible. The authorities on the subject may be found collected and reviewed in an extended note to People v. Molineux, 62 L. R. A. 193; also in 12 Cyc. 405-411.

Webb, the father-in-law of Blair, had testified to requesting Sargood in October, 1902. not to sell Blair any more liquor, and to Sargood's replying, with an oath, that he would get even with Blair for having gone back on him. Afterwards Blair was allowed to testify that more than once in the fall of 1902 Sargood had furnished him liquor, it being conceded that Sargood had no authority to sell. This testimony of Blair's came in against exception, and under that exception it is now urged that it did not appear that the furnishing was before the conversation testified to by Webb. The exceptions as amended, however, make it clear, especially in view of the argument which took place in the court below, that the offer was to show that Sargood "had been letting Blair have intoxicating liquor"; that is to say, had been letting him have it before the time of the Webb-Sargood conversation. That was the offer upon which the court passed. The evidence, as given, was not excepted to for failing to come within the offer; and although it was not, in terms, limited to the time preceding the conversation, the jury might find from it that the occasions of furnishing really were previous.

In the July following the April in which the colts were poisoned, Doyle had offered Blair a drink of whisky...