State v. Talbott, 27484.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1939
• Docket Number: 27484.
• Citation: 91 P.2d 1020,199 Wash. 431
• Parties: STATE v. TALBOTT.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

91 P.2d 1020

199 Wash. 431

STATE v. TALBOTT.

No. 27484.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 30, 1939

Department 1.

Earl Talbott was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County Timothy A. Paul, judge.

Cameron Sherwood and Judd D. Kimball, both of Walla Walla, for appellant.

Glenn L. Bean, E. W. King, and A. J. Gillis, all of Walla Walla for the State.

ROBINSON Justice.

On August 9, 1938, at about 2:30 p. m., the body of W. E McKinney was found concealed under a pile of rubbish behind the buildings on the McKinney ranch, near Waitsburg Washington. Mr. McKinney was born on this ranch some few years after his father homesteaded the land in 1863. At the time of his death, he was living there, with no companion other than his dog. There was a deep scalp wound above his left ear, and a gunshot wound in each temple. The condition of the body indicated that he had been dead about five hours. A search of the premises revealed that his automobile was missing; also, his saddle, bridle, three shotguns, and his dog.

A description of the car was broadcast by police radio. At about 8:30 that evening, an officer of the Oregon state police discovered the automobile in the possession of a young girl, at Milton, Oregon. When asked where she got the car, she said she had borrowed it from her boy friend, Earl Talbott. He was immediately picked up at a nearby cabin camp and held for the sheriff of Walla Walla county. He told the arresting officer that the car belonged to a cattle buyer named Healey.

Talbott was but eighteen years of age and lived with his divorced mother at Waitsburg. When questioned by a deputy prosecutor, he at first told a detailed story of the effect that he had been hunting that morning along the Touchet river, and, when he came out on the road, an acquaintance named Healey happened along in an automobile and asked him to go with him to Starbuck and Dayton. After making that trip, they came back to Waitsburg, where Talbott changed clothes, and they then went to Walla Walla. Healey had to go to Ellensburg, but left his car with Talbott, upon his promise to return it to him at Walla Walla the next morning. Talbott drove down to Milton to spend the night. He was questioned at length and became involved in discrepancies and contradictions. Finally, he gave a very different account of his acts on the morning of August 9th. This account was, in substance, as follows:

He had gone hunting that morning with a .22 rifle which he had purchased three days Before . As he went along the Touchet river, he came into the vicinity of the McKinney ranch. The had worked there as a harvest hand for some days just previously, and, while so employed, saw some articlues about the premises which he greatly desired, and thought if he went there he might be able to get them. However, Mr. McKinney was at home. They walked around the place and talked for an hour or so. Finally, McKinney sat down on the platform of a four-wheeled wagon style trailer which was standing in the machinery shed. Talbott picked up a pair of very heavy pliers, which were lying on the trailer, and suddenly, as he held them in his hand, it occurred to him 'to knock McKinney out.' He struck him a hard blow on the side of the head. McKinney fell back on the trailer platform unconscious and bleeding profusely. Talbott had struck him a harder blow than he intended, and concluded that he had better 'finish him off.' He picked up his rifle, which was standing in the corner of the shed, and shot McKinney just back of the left eye, then walked behind the trailer, and shot him in the other side of the head. He then tried to run the trailer down a cattle path in the direction of the river, but it got out of control on the steep grade, and the body was thrown off. He covered it with some boards, old automobile fenders, and odds and ends of lumber from a nearby rubbish pile, went back to the garage, took out the automobile, pumped it full of gas, took the guns from the house, and the saddle and bridle from the garage. Finally, he put the dog into the car, not because he wanted him, but with the idea that, if any neighbor came to the ranch and found the dog there, he might look around for his master, but, finding both absent, would suppose that McKinney had gone on a trip and had taken the dog with him. In this way, he hoped to have four or five days in which to get away.

Having put the various articles in the car, he drove to his mother's house in Waitsburg, telling her the car belonged to a friend, changed clothes, left his rifle and one shotgun at his mother's and drove south towards Walla Walla and Oregon. He stopped at his father's and left the saddle and another shotgun. South of Walla Walla, he put the dog out of the car. All of these articles were subsequently found at the places indicated. The third shotgun was in the car when he was arrested. After telling this story several times, he was taken to the ranch, and there, with the pliers and the rifle, reenacted the killing in the presence of the sheriff, prosecuting attorney, and several other witnesses. Photographs of this grim demonstration are in the record.

The appellant was informed against in two counts: The first, charging murder in the first degree while engaged in committing, attempting to commit, or in withdrawing from the scene of the commission of a felony; the second, charging murder in the first degree, with premeditated design. The court appointed counsel for his defense. They interposed the formal plea of not guilty, and a special plea of not guilty because of insanity. The defendant's indifference to the whole matter was so pronounced as to give the insanity plea considerable plausibility, and there was considerable evidence assembled to support it.

It was shown at the trial that the boy came from a low-grade home. His father had both suicidal and criminal tendencies, and had frequently taken the boy on wheatstealing expeditions. The defendant's great-great-grandfather went insane, and there had been insanity in collateral branches of his father's family. At the time of the killing, one of Talbott's sisters had the mental capacity of a child of three, although she was fourteen years old. He did not like to play with other boys, and did not show much affection for the other members of his family.

On the other hand, he was of an entirely peaceable disposition. He had finished grade school at the usual age of fourteen, having passed the seventh and eighth grades in one year. After that, he largely supported himself. He had just finished a job with a harvesting crew, acquitting himself as an 'A-No. 1 header man'. Some of his associates did not think him in any way abnormal, but there is much evidence that, during his boyhood, he did not like to associate or play with other children and showed no affection for his relatives. His mother testified that, so to all other matters, he seemed like other boys of his own age.

Doctor Edward Hoedemaker, of Seattle, was called as an expert for the defense, although compensated for his services by the state. As the ultimate fate of the defendant rests largely upon his opinion, it may be well to mention that his qualifications were shown to be of a high order, he having at one time served for two years as a specialist in neurology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, and for three years as chief surgeon in neurology and psychiatry at the Pennsylvania General Hospital. This experience had been...