State v. Scott
Decision Date | 04 August 1914 |
Docket Number | 2094. |
Parties | STATE v. SCOTT. |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; Edward A. Ducker Judge.
Bert Scott was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
J. M Frame, of Reno, for appellant.
George B. Thatcher, Atty. Gen., E. T. Patrick, Deputy Atty. Gen., and J. A. Callahan, Dist. Atty., of Winnemucca, for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and his penalty fixed by the jury at life imprisonment. The court refused to grant him a new trial; hence this appeal.
From the record on appeal it appears that the deceased, Ben Swago, was associated in business with one Fouts, in the town of Rochester; the business consisting of a saloon and restaurant in the same building. The defendant Scott, as appears from the transcript, was employed by Fouts to represent him and in a way to oversee the business in the interests of Fouts. On the evening of the 24th of February, 1913, the establishment was about to open, and on that occasion the bar was opened; the restaurant portion not having been completed. In the early part of the evening, the defendant, while in the kitchen at the rear of the barroom in a somewhat intoxicated condition, had urinated upon the floor. For this act he was accosted by the deceased. The defendant replied with angry and foul words, telling deceased, in effect, not to interfere with him or he would put him out of there; that he was the man that was making the money, whereupon the deceased struck the defendant several times. Bystanders intervened and stopped the fight and the two advanced to the front of the building, in which position the bar was located, and there, it appears, that a second altercation occurred, in which words were uttered, but no blows struck. At this time a woman by the name of Alice Miller, a prostitute with whom the deceased, Swago, had been consorting while in the town of Rochester, injected herself into the altercation between deceased and defendant, and after the second trouble, which occurred in the front of the saloon, Swago, the deceased, and the Miller woman left the saloon by the front door, passing out into the street. The record discloses that the defendant, after the second altercation, went behind the bar and took therefrom a revolver and walked out to the front door. At the front door, or thereabouts, the third altercation took place, in which the deceased was shot by the defendant.
The record in this case discloses evidence produced by the state, depicting the circumstances of three distinct altercations occurring in succession between the deceased and the defendant, in each of which the state's evidence undeniedly shows the deceased to have been the aggressor.
It is the contention of appellant that the verdict of murder in the first degree, entailing life imprisonment, is not supported by the evidence, as disclosed at the trial of this case. With this phase of the case we shall deal later.
At the trial of this case in the court below, the defendant interposed self-defense in justification of his act.
The evidence discloses an alleged dying declaration, made by the deceased, Swago, introduced by the state and in part reading:
The phase of the altercation, as touched upon briefly in the dying declaration, is, to some extent, borne out by the testimony of other witnesses. It appears from the testimony of Alice Miller that a second altercation took place at the bar in the front part of the building. She says in her testimony, in answer to interrogatories propounded by the prosecuting attorney (referring to Scott):
"Ben--excuse my language--I says, 'Ben, the son of a bitch is going for his gun,' and so Ben went right after him, and he caught a hold of him, I judge just within about four feet of the bar, and at the same time five or six fellows rushed up and grabbed Mr. Swago again, and pulled him away from Mr. Scott, and held him you might say in a vise."
Later in the same statement she said:
At another place in her testimony, referring to the altercation in the rear of the room, she said:
Referring to the immediate incident of the shooting outside the door of the saloon, the witness Miller further states:
At another place she testified:
On cross-examination, the witness, being interrogated as to the movements of herself and the deceased after they left the front door of the saloon, testified as follows:
The witness Miller was the principal witness for the state, and her testimony, taken in connection with the dying declaration introduced in evidence, discloses three events happening in succession, in each one of which the deceased appears to have been the aggressor.
The plea of the defendant in this case being that of self-defense, the court gave several instructions bearing upon the law of self-defense in the abstract, and especial objection is raised by appellant herein to instruction No. 31, given by the court at the request of the state. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Truckee-Carson Irr. Dist. v. Wyatt
...... Instructions cautioning the jury to carefully consider a witness's testimony are often given. Carlson v. State, 84 Nev. ---, 445 P.2d 157 (1968); Crowe v. State, 84 Nev. ---, 441 P.2d 90 (1968). . Assuming arguendo that the instruction was ...Manzella, 369 S.W.2d 188 (Mo.1963); Apodaca v. United States F. & G. Co., 78 N.M. 501, 433 P.2d 86 (1967); Scott v. Brown, 76 N.M. 501, 416 P.2d 516 (1966); Tevis v. McCrary, 75 N.M. 165, 402 P.2d 150 (1965); Kanoy v. Hinshaw, 273 N.C. 418, 160 S.E.2d 296 ......
-
State v. Teeter
...... 4:30 P.M., November 29, 1946. This was almost exactly five. days from the time he was injured, at about 4:00 P.M.,. November, 24, 1946. [200 P.2d 680] . . Reference. is now made to the very able and scholarly opinion of Mr. Justice McCarran in State v. Scott, 37 Nev. 412, 142. P. 1053. On pages 429, 430, of 37 Nev., page 1059 of 142 P.,. the learned Justice stated:. . . 'The. question whether the alleged dying declarations were made. under such circumstances as to render them admissible in. evidence was in the first ......
-
Bishop v. State
...... She also testified that he left the hotel room during the evening of April 22, 1971, and that she did not see him again until the morning of April 23, 1971, and on that morning she saw a bank bag in the hotel room for the first time. Sylvester Scott testified that Bishop admitted the commission of the crime to him. Raymond Berkley testified that he heard him say: 'I'm not going to fry; they can't prove anything, even though I did do it.' Both were his fellow inmates in the Clark County Jail. A police officer testified that in referring to ......
-
Criswell v. State, 5415
.... Page 552. 443 P.2d 552. 84 Nev. 459. Elmer Finch CRISWELL, Appellant,. v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. No. 5415. Supreme Court of Nevada. July 15, 1968. Orville R. Wilson, Elko, for appellant. Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Mark C. Scott, Jr., Dist. Atty., Elko, for respondent. [84 Nev. 460] OPINION. BATJER, J. The appellant, Elmer Finch Criswell, was charged with murder, and after a trial the jury found the appellant guilty of second . Page 553. degree murder. The trial court entered its judgment ......