State v. Sullivan
Decision Date | 07 June 1932 |
Citation | 139 Or. 640,11 P.2d 1054 |
Parties | STATE v. SULLIVAN. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In Bank.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County; J. W. Knowles, Judge.
Willard Sylvester Sullivan was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
R. J Kitchen, of La Grande, for appellant.
Carl G Helm, Dist. Atty., of La Grande, for the State.
The defendant has appealed from a judgment convicting him of the crime of murder in the second degree. The principal facts in the cause surrounding the alleged slaying and death of the victim are substantially as follows:
Homer Bidwell was a farmer who resided upon, and cultivated, his lands situate near North Powder in Union county, Or. About 5:30 o'clock on the evening of June 27, 1931, the horses that he had used that day in plowing his field were found standing at the gate of the Bidwell home with tugs and lines dragging. Mrs. Bidwell, thinking that her husband had sustained an accidental injury, took the family car and set out to find him. Following the sagebrush-bordered road which led to the field, she found her husband lying in one of the tracks of the road at a point about 300 yards from the house and with his face upturned. In the belief that the horses had run away and injured him, she removed the blood from his nose and mouth and immediately had him taken to Hot Lake Sanitorium fifteen miles away, where he was pronounced dead. In the preparation of the body for burial, a slight abrasion was observed under the left eye. X-ray pictures were taken and a bullet located in the head. A post mortem examination revealed that the bullet, a 25-caliber, had passed through his left eye, followed a backward course, and lodged in the back of his head on the right side. The question then arose Who killed Homer Bidwell?
The testimony in the case shows that in July, 1930, defendant Sullivan and his wife started on an automobile journey from Portland, Or., to their former home in Missouri, with the idea of doing a little work along the way. When they reached the Bidwell ranch near North Powder, Homer Bidwell hired Sullivan, who was traveling under the name of Sylvester Marler, to help him in putting up his hay crop, and Sullivan's wife agreed to help Mrs. Bidwell with the cooking and dish washing in payment for her board and room. Mrs. Bidwell testified that Sullivan and his wife arrived at their home about ; July 4, 1930, and remained until August 16th following, when Sullivan decided to proceed on his way East. Mrs. Sullivan desired to remain in Oregon. Argument ensued, and, concerning this difficulty, Mrs. Bidwell testified:
She testified that defendant's wife told her that she lived in fear of her husband, and that it was her intention to leave him. That afternoon Mr. and Mrs. Bidwell drove to Baker, as did Sullivan and his wife. When the Sullivans reached Baker, Mrs. Sullivan alighted from the automobile and went into a store, leaving her husband sitting in the automobile. After waiting in vain for her return, he entered upon a vigilant hunt, without success. He then returned to the Bidwell ranch and asked Mrs. Bidwell where his wife was, and she answered that she did not know. He next drove to the home of his wife's uncle in Portland, to ascertain whether she had gone there. Failing to learn anything from the uncle, he again returned to the Bidwell home, accosted Mr. Bidwell, and asked him where his wife's clothing was, and he answered that he did not know. Mrs. Bidwell's testimony continues: She testified that defendant came to their home early on the Monday morning after his wife disappeared, that: She testified that he came at still other times. She further testified that some unknown person was watching around their home after night on four or five different occasions; that they heard some one around the place several times, but could never find anybody; that, during this time, it was the usual custom of her husband and herself for one of them always to remain at home to watch the premises, but that, contrary to custom, on Saturday, August 30, 1930, both her husband and herself went to Baker and left the place alone, and, upon returning home found that the shells had been removed from their shotgun and other shotgun shells had likewise been taken; and that a $25 suitcase, a telescope, and a blanket were also missing from their home.
Walter Manning testified that he had worked at the Bidwell ranch for three years. He testified that he heard a conversation between the defendant and Homer Bidwell on the night of August 16, 1930, in which the defendant asked Mr. Bidwell where he supposed his wife was; that Mr. Bidwell told him Referring to a conversation between himself and the defendant, Manning testified that the defendant '
We have hereinbefore made reference to some property that had been taken from the Bidwell home. Manning testified to the following additional circumstance which tends to show motive or desire on the part of the defendant to injure the deceased: This fire occurred two weeks after Sullivan and his wife left the Bidwell ranch.
J. E. Schofield, an unfriendly neighbor of the Bidwells, testified that the defendant had told him he thought the Bidwells knew where defendant's wife was and would not tell him. This witness testified that on one particular occasion he had a conversation with the defendant concerning Mr. Bidwell, which he related as follows:
What we believe to refer to the same circumstance is thus related bye Mrs. Bidwell:
Isaac R. Neuner testified that, between 3 and 4 o'clock in the afternoon of August 30, 1930, while he and Walter Manning were at work stacking grain for Homer Bidwell at a point about 150 yards south of the Bidwell house, he saw some person go to the Bidwell house, and a little later he "saw a man walking toward the creek, toward the hog pen almost due west from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Dennis
...Evidence of collateral crimes tending to prove the commission of the crime charged in the indictment is admissible. State v. Sullivan, 139 Or. 640, 11 P. (2d) 1054; State v. Evans, 143 Or. 603, 22 P. (2d) 496; State v. Christiansen, 150 Or. 11, 41 P. (2d) 442; State v. Gillis, 154 Or. 232, ......
-
State v. Long
...Evidence, 4th ed., § 182. See State v. Hembree, 54 Or. 463, 103 P. 1008; State v. Walters, 105 Or. 662, 668, 209 P. 349; State v. Sullivan, 139 Or. 640, 11 P.2d 1054; State v. McClard, supra, 81 Or. 510, 160 P. 130; State v. Ewing, supra, 174 Or. 487, 149 P.2d 765; State v. Bailey, supra, 1......
-
Hoes v. State
...by multiplying his crimes, diminish the volume of competent testimony against him. State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311, 319; State v. Sullivan, 139 Or. 640, 652, 11 P.2d 1054, 1058.' (emphasis added). We find a 'logical connection', as discussed by Young v. State,supra, and Wilson v. State, supra, ......
-
State v. Gardner
...3 L.Ed.2d 66; State v. Broadhurst, 1948, 184 Or. 178, 196 P.2d 407; State v. Ewing, 1944, 174 Or. 487, 149 P.2d 765; State v. Sullivan, 1932, 139 Or. 640, 11 P.2d 1054. It should be noted that the evidence elicited from Luella Smith only incidentally tends to prove the commission of another......