State v. Sayles

• Citation: 155 N.W. 837,173 Iowa 374
• Decision Date: 11 January 1916
• Docket Number: 30394
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM SAYLES, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

155 N.W. 837

173 Iowa 374

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. WILLIAM SAYLES, Appellant

No. 30394

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 11, 1916

Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.--E. B. WOODRUFF, Judge.

THE defendant, having been convicted of murder in the second degree, appeals.

Affirmed.

H. J Chambers, for appellant.

George Cosson, Attorney General, C. E. Swanson, County Attorney, for appellee.

LADD J. DEEMER, GAYNOR and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

LADD, J.

I.

The accused struck John G. Runyan with his fist, but one blow. This happened shortly before nine o'clock of May 7, 1914 and Runyan died, apparently from suffocation, about fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock the same evening. Appellant contends (1) that the evidence was not such as to warrant his conviction and (2) that there was no evidence of murder in the first degree; and, for this reason, the court erred in submitting to the jury the question as to whether he was guilty thereof.

Was death caused, or at least hastened, by a blow over the larnyx? At the autopsy, no external marks were discovered on the body, except "a slight discoloration of the skin over the voice box and wind pipe". An autopsy was held and, among other things, Dr. Treynor testified:

"We cut down the larynx and found tissues of larynx discolored and bruised. Removed the larynx and found the bruises extended through the larynx, and there was injury to mucus lining, and blood clot engaged in mucus lining of larynx. The tissues surrounding larynx permeated with blood, fluid and air. In my opinion, Mr. Runyan's death was due to oedema and emphysema of the larynx and tissues of the throat. Death would result from suffocation. Oedema and emphysema caused by contusion of tissues so that little capillary blood vessels were ruptured and would leave a bloody part of the fluid in tissues, producing watery condition. An entrance of air from larynx would infiltrate tissues with air; it would be a gradual accumulation of water and fluid. Death would not be immediate; time would depend on extent of contusions. If there were a great many small capillary blood vessels broken, the infiltration of blood into the tissues would be more rapid than if more limited. It would require considerable force to produce such condition, in my judgment. A thickening of the mitral valve of the heart was discovered, and this would somewhat impair its use. We found acute dilation of the right heart. There was a leaky condition of the right heart; between the right auricle and ventricle there was regurgitation of blood from ventricle to auricle."

The physician stated further that many die because of this condition and often quickly and that, owing to this condition, a person would be likely to die more quickly from suffocation. "Death from dilation of the heart leaves discoloration of the skin that you see in any condition of suffocation from non-aeration of the blood."

The testimony of Dr. Hennessy was substantially the same, he adding that "the lungs seemed distended with air and of darker color than ordinarily" and that there was no external evidence of death from dilation of the heart. "Whenever there is cessation of circulation, the blood, not being oxygenized, turns purple, manifests itself in purple or bluish color on surface, the same in dilation as in strangulation."

From this evidence, the jury might have inferred that death resulted from the application of force, as by a blow over the larynx. Was such a blow struck by the accused? A messenger boy had left his bicycle at the corner of a restaurant in Council Bluffs. Defendant came along with a jug and took the wheel with him to the other corner or beyond, when he was seen by the deceased, John Runyan, who stopped him, inquiring what he was going to do with the wheel. Defendant responded that he was taking it for fun, or for a joke, and was going to put it around the corner of the restaurant. About this time, several small boys came up. Runyan asked one of them if it was his wheel, saying that he had stopped Sayles from taking it, when the latter repeated, in substance, that he had taken the wheel only as a joke. At Runyan's direction, some of the boys notified the owner, and he came for the wheel. After some further talk, Sayles started for home, saying that he would be back again, and returned, after a few minutes, with Lyons. Runyan seems to have repeated the charge several times, and Sayles as often denied it. Sayles then started away, whereupon Runyan asked him if he was scared. He returned again, when Runyan asked him if he knew his brother Fred; and, as Sayles said he did, sent for him. When he came, Fred said he did not know Sayles. The latter remarked, "You can get acquainted with me," and, removing his coat, struck deceased. A cigar fell from his mouth, and, as he stooped to get it, he staggered backward. Sayles then struck at Fred Runyan, who dodged the blow, and then knocked him down, and, after being on him a short time, offered to let him up if he would behave himself. Defendant responded, "If you let me up, I will clean the whole Runyan family", and denounced him with epithets. One witness testified that defendant struck deceased in the chest; five, merely that he struck the deceased, but did not describe where. After the trouble, deceased went to bed in the bunk house for train crews near the roundhouse of a railway company, by which he was employed. He was next seen fifteen or twenty minutes after eleven o'clock in the evening, coming from the water cooler in the roundhouse, "choking and pulling at his throat", and he could not talk, and died in a few minutes.

From this evidence, the jury might have inferred that the only violence done deceased was the blow of defendant; that this was on the neck over the larynx; and that, by said blow, death was caused or hastened; and therefore, that the defendant was responsible for the death of the deceased. True, the boy Withrow testified that defendant struck deceased in the chest. A witness might easily be mistaken as to the place of contact, especially where the principals are in close proximity. Much necessarily depends upon relative positions and the matter of attention. The other five witnesses did not undertake to say where deceased was hit. The evidence fairly excludes the inference that he was injured subsequently. There was no mark on his person other than over his larynx, and there some violence, as a blow, had been applied. From this evidence, the jury might have inferred that defendant's blow was on the neck, instead of chest, and caused death.

II. It will be recalled that, immediately after striking deceased, defendant struck at Fred Runyan and was by the latter knocked down; and when defendant was on the ground, a policeman came up, who was asked on the witness stand, "What was he talking about?" and answered that, upon his arrival, Fred Runyan said to Sayles that, if he would behave himself, he might get up, to which Sayles replied, "If you let me up, I will clean the whole Runyan family." Defendant moved to strike the answer as irrelevant and concerning a transaction had "between the witness and the defendant, and not the decedent in the case". It was immediately connected with what had preceded and but a few seconds thereafter, and clearly was a part of the res gestae, tending to show the feeling he entertained towards deceased in what he had done. State v. Gainor, 84 Iowa 209, 50 N.W. 947; State v. Jones, 64 Iowa 349, 17 N.W. 911; 21 Cyc., 937.

III. One of the errors assigned relates to the examination of Dr. Hennessy:

"Q. You and Dr. Treynor and the coroner talked there about sending that brain to Omaha for further examination, did you? A. Yes. Q. Did you not advise and Dr. Treynor advise that that be sent? A. We though it...