State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 05 October 1897
• Citation: 72 N.W. 279,102 Iowa 656
• Parties: STATE v. SMITH.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 Iowa 656

72 N.W. 279

STATE

v.SMITH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; S. F. Balliet, Judge.

The defendant was accused of the crime of murder in the first degree, was tried by jury, found guilty, and adjudged to be imprisoned in the state penitentiary at Anamosa during the term of her natural life. From that judgment she appeals. Reversed.F. B. Huckstep and Dale, Kinkead & Bissel, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., Jesse A. Miller, and James A. Howe, for the State.

ROBINSON, J.

The indictment charges that on the 24th day of April, 1894, the defendant committed the crime of murder in the first degree, by willfully, and with premeditation and malice aforethought, administering to Michael Smith a deadly poison, which caused his death on the next day. Michael Smith was the husband of the defendant. About one year preceding his death, after he had retired for the night, and while alone with the defendant in his bedroom, he received a gunshot wound, which made him wholly blind. The wound appeared to have been made by a bullet, which entered his head just back of the left eye, and passed through the head, making its exit in the right temple, just back of the right eye. The optic nerves were destroyed, but the brain was not injured. At that time Smith held a certificate of membership issued by the Locomotive Engineers' Mutual Life Insurance Association, which provided for the payment of the sum of $3,000 in case of the total and permanent loss of eyesight after the expiration of one year from the commencement of such disability, and we infer from a meager statement in the record that a like sum would have been payable at his death without preceding blindness. The defendant was named as the beneficiary of the certificate in case payments or benefits should accrue or become due to his heirs. The year of total blindness had expired, and measures for the collection of the amount of the certificate were being taken, but it had not been received when Smith died. There is evidence which tends to show that several attempts to poison Smith had been made within a short time preceding his death, and that poison was administered to him two or more times on the day and in the evening before he died. The direct testimony connecting the defendant with the poisoning was given by Mrs. Ida E. Scoville, a sister of the defendant, who had been living with her several months at the time of Smith's death. She testified that, for several months preceding that time, the defendant had been paying attention to one of her roomers, a saloon keeper, named Frank Bellaire; that she spent much of her time, both day and night, in his company, furnished him money with which to start a saloon, and purchased articles of clothing for him; that the money used for those purposes was from the savings of Smith; that the defendant and Bellaire habitually occupied the same room and bed at night; and that the defendant had talked about the money which was to be paid on Smith's certificate, and, about two months before Smith's death, had said that, when she obtained the money, she intended to leave with Bellaire. Other witnesses also testified to the defendant's fondness for Bellaire, and that they were frequently out together at night. Mrs. Scoville testified further as to threats made by the defendant against the life of her husband, and that she treated him brutally; that, about two weeks before Smith's death, she said that she had given him a dose; that the witness was present at the time, and saw her place 17 or 18 small pills in a piece of lemon pie which Smith ate; that he complained that the pie was bitter, and would have left a part of it, but the defendant fed it to him; that she told the witness not to call a physician if he became sick, and left the house; that the next morning the defendant prepared breakfast, although not accustomed to do so; that oatmeal was served, and that the defendant stated she had placed morphine in the portion which Smith ate; that, in the afternoon of the day preceding Smith's death, she gave him something, without telling the witness what it was, but told her, if Smith became sick, not to send for a physician, and then left the house with Bellaire; that she did not return until about 11 o'clock that night, and that at that time she and Bellaire were intoxicated; that about midnight she filled a capsule from the contents of a box of “rough on rats,” a preparation of which from 70 to 95 per cent. is shown to be arsenic, and gave it to Smith; that he had been sick since 7 o'clock that evening, and was in so serious a condition that several persons who came in during the evening advised sending for a physician; that, after the defendant's return, Bellaire started for a physician; that, when the defendant learned of the fact, she sent for him to return, and herself followed, and overtook him, and induced him to return to the house; and that no physician was called until the next morning, after Smith had become unconscious, and but a short time before his death, which occurred at 9 o'clock. Mrs. Scoville's testimony respecting the sickness and death of Smith, and the defendant's conduct after her return in the evening, excepting as to the administering of the capsule, is corroborated by other witnesses. A post mortem examination was made, which showed that Smith's death was caused by arsenical poisoning. It appears to be the theory of the defendant that the poison was administered by Mrs. Scoville, and some evidence designed to show that such was the case was offered.

1. The appellant first complains that the district court refused to require the jurors to be kept together in charge of a proper officer during the trial, although requested to do so by the defendant, but permitted them to separate, although she did not consent, but objected to the separation. The abstract of the appellant appears to sustain her claim in regard to this matter, but is denied by the state, which claims that the record does not show what was done, if anything, respecting the separation of the jury. This claim is based upon the following facts: The trial in the district court commenced on the 14th and ended on the 30th day of June, 1894. A bill of exceptions was signed by the trial judge, and filed, which contains the following: “That afterwards the trial of said cause was commenced, and all of the evidence offered, introduced, or used by each and all of the parties was taken down in shorthand by the said C. F. Irish, official reporter of said court, and all exhibits and documentary evidence offered, introduced, or used on said trial were identified and referred to in said shorthand notes, which contain all the evidence offered, introduced, or used, and proceedings had and done, on the trial of said case; that the offers of evidence, questions asked, objections made, rulings of the court, and exceptions by defendant to such rulings, are as stated and shown in said shorthand notes of the evidence, and are each and all correctly stated therein. Said shorthand notes of the evidence are entitled in the case, and were duly filed in said court and cause on the 26th day of June, 1894; and such shorthand notes of the evidence, together with the translation thereof, when duly made and certified to by said official shorthand reporter, are hereby made a part of this bill of exceptions, and a part of the record in this case.” The trial judge had, on...