State v. Spangler

• Decision Date: 29 August 1916
• Docket Number: 13363.
• Citation: 92 Wash. 636,159 P. 810
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SPANGLER.

159 P. 810

92 Wash. 636

STATE v. SPANGLER.

No. 13363.

Supreme Court of Washington

August 29, 1916

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; A. E. Rice Judge.

J. H Spangler was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Forney & Ponder, of Chehalis, for appellant.

C. D Cunningham, of Centralia, C. A. Studebaker and H. E. Donohoe both of Chehalis, and W. O. Grimm, of Centralia, for the State.

MAIN J.

The defendant killed his wife at Vader, Wash., on August 13, 1915. Thereafter an information was filed against him, by which he was charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. To the information a plea of not guilty was entered, and a special plea of mental irresponsibility at the time the offense was committed, but that such mental irresponsibility had disappeared at the time of entering the plea. Upon the issues thus framed the trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree. A motion for a new trial being made and overruled, judgment was entered upon the verdict. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. From this judgment and sentence the appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant and the deceased were married about 7 years prior to the homicide. Some time after the marriage trouble between them arose, largely, if not entirely, due to the appellant's habits as to intoxication. For some time prior to August 13th they had been conducting a small confectionery business at the town of Vader. Some days before the date mentioned the deceased had instituted an action for divorce against the appellant. From about the time when the action was instituted until the time of the killing the wife had been conducting the confectionery business alone, though the appellant was about the store from time to time. The deceased had a son by a former marriage who was a lad of 10 or 12 years of age. On the evening of August 13th the appellant came to the store and requested of the deceased that her son be permitted to accompany him to Kelso, where he was to repair an automobile. This request was refused. He then left the store, but shortly afterwards returned. Upon his return two ladies in addition to the deceased were in the store. The appellant requested the deceased to step to a room in the back part of the building, as he desired to talk to her. This request was refused. He then requested that she step out upon the sidewalk in front of the building, and this was likewise refused. The two ladies mentioned were sitting at an ice cream table. After the second request was made and refused the deceased turned around preparatory to sitting down at the table at which the other two ladies were seated. While thus standing with her back toward the appellant, he drew a revolver from his pocket, placed the muzzle near the back of the deceased's head, and fired. The shot caused instant death. There is evidence that during this day the appellant had been in the city of Centralia, and had been drinking to some extent.

Upon the trial evidence was offered by the state touching a quarrel which occurred between the husband and wife about ten days prior to the shooting. It is claimed this was error. The rule is well settled that in cases of marital homicide the state has the right to prove ill treatment or quarrels with his wife on the trial of the husband for her murder. 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence, § 43; Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291; Hall v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 565, 21 S.W. 368; McCann v. People, 3 Parker, Cr. R. (N. Y.) 272; Parsons v. People, 218 Ill. 236, 75 N.E. 993. In the case last cited, upon this question it was said:

'It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the court erred in admitting evidence as to quarrels and disagreements between plaintiff in error and his wife. But we are of the opinion there was no error in permitting such testimony to be introduced. It has been held that where a husband or wife is charged with the murder of the other, it is competent to prove their mutual conduct towards, and treatment of, each other, as manifested by acts and words.'

Objection is made to the testimony of Dr. D. A. Nickelson, a specialist in nervous and mental diseases, who was permitted upon the trial to give his opinion as to the appellant's sanity at the time the offense was committed, based upon an examination made of the appellant, and also upon the facts as they appeared upon the trial from the testimony of other witnesses. This witness examined the appellant while he was in jail awaiting trial, with the knowledge of the sheriff and at the request of the prosecuting attorney, but without the knowledge or consent of the appellant's attorneys. The evidence does not show the nature or extent of the examination. Neither does it show that the defendant was unwilling that the examination take place. No evidence was offered of any act done by the appellant or statement made by him. In brief, the evidence only showed that the examination was made, and that, based upon such examination, and upon the facts as they appeared from the testimony of other witnesses, he was of the opinion that the appellant was sane at the time of the homicide. This evidence was properly admissible, unless the fact that the witness' opinion, as shown by the question, was based, not alone upon the examination, but also upon the testimony of other witnesses, renders it incompetent. 8 R. C. L. p. 194, § 190. In People v. Kemmler, 119 N.Y. 580, 24 N.E. 9, it was said:

'It is urged that the court erred in permitting the physicians, called as witnesses for the people, to testify as to the mental condition of the prisoner. The argument is that either the relation of patient and physician existed, or else the prisoner was compelled to furnish evidence against himself. These physicians were sent to the jail by the district attorney to make an examination of the prisoner's mental and physical condition. On the stand they

...