Steigler v. State

• Decision Date: 16 February 1971
• Docket Number: No. 41,41
• Citation: 277 A.2d 662
• Parties: Herbert F. STEIGLER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. The STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

Page 662

277 A.2d 662

Herbert F. STEIGLER, Defendant Below, Appellant, v.The STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee.

No. 41.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Rehearing Denied May 11, 1971.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court.Affirmed.

William E. Taylor, Jr., of Taylor, Lindh, Paul & Abramo, Wilmington, for defendant below, appellant.

John G. Mulford and Richard W. Weir, Jr., Deputy Attys.Gen., for the State, appellee.

WOLCOTT, C.J., and CAREY and HERRMANN, JJ., sitting.

CAREY, Justice:

The appellant, Herbert F. Steigler, was convicted in Superior Court upon three charges of murder in the first degree and one charge of assault with intent to commit murder.He has appealed from the sentences imposed thereupon.His contentions are numerous and will be discussed individually.

The crimes with which the appellant was charged took place very early in the morning of October 19, 1968.The persons killed were appellant's father-in- law, mother-in-law, and his six-year-old daughter.Their deaths resulted from a fire which gutted appellant's home near Wilmington.At the time of the fire, the appellant, his wife, and their young son were also in the house.The State contended, and the jury found, that the blaze was deliberately started by the appellant.Appellant agrees that the fire was deliberately started by someone, but denies any knowledge of, or connection with, the act.

The home of appellant and his family faces north on Murphy Road in Deerhurst.It is a two-story building with a cellar.On the first floor, there is a living room at the northwest section and a den at the northeast section.The living room and den are separated by a stairway leading to the second floor.At the bottom of the stairway is a landing, from which there are two or three steps to the den floor on the east and the living room floor on the west.The north side of the landing is blocked off by a closet.Directly behind the westerly portion of the living room is the dining room; directly behind the den is a downstairs bedroom; between this bedroom and the dining room is the kitchen.There is an outside door leading into the living room in the front of the house; another outside door at the east end of the house leading into the den; and a third door in the rear leading into the bedroom.

At the top of the stairs, there is a hallway to the right leading to two bedrooms on the westerly side of the house.Directly in front of the stairs is a bathroom.Immediately to the left of the stairs is the master bedroom and bath.

At 2:28 a.m., the Talleyville Fire Company was notified by telephone that the Steigler house was on fire.The first fire engine reached the house at 2:32 a.m. One of the firemen on the engine was Mr. Lynch, who is also a Deputy State Fire Marshal.The firemen learned from someone standing outside that there were still people in the building.Some of the firemen tried to enter the building but were forced back by the terrific heat and smoke.Two or three, including Mr. Lynch, wearing gas masks and other protective clothing, entered the house.Mr. Lynch managed to crawl along the floor through the kitchen and dining room into the living room.He testified that the heat was intense and that when he reached the landing at the bottom of the stairs, the heat was tremendous and became more severe as he went up the steps.The firemen managed to remove the body of appellant's mother-in-law from the northwest bedroom.The bodies of appellant's father-in-law and daughter were removed from the southwest bedroom.All were dead.

Mr. Lynch, on his trips through the house, had noticed several things which caused him to realize that the fire had been deliberately set.He reported the matter to the State Police, and Sgt. Bramble arrived at the scene about an hour after the fire had started.Lynch and Bramble went through the house and found nine containers placed at various locations in the living room, den, and stairway.Some of the containers still contained gasoline. some were one-gallon containers and at least one was a two-gallon container.One of these had been placed on the floor of the upstairs hallway directly at the top of the atairs.It was broken into pieces and gasoline from it had saturated the carpet.Another was placed immediately adjacent to the front door, and another was directly in front of the east door leading into the den.A considerable quantity of gasoline had soaked into various rugs and the carpet in the two front rooms.On the stair landing, they found what was later identified as the melted base of a plastic container about ten inches in diameter.This proved to be the residue of a five-gallon container exactly like another which was found on the premises.All these containers were later identified by appellant and his wife as having come from their basement and garage.

Later in the day, Sgt. Bramble discovered in the garage a Mason jar containing gasoline and topped with a cloth.A piece of that same cloth was found stuffed into the mouth of another container found in the yard.This was a wine bottle filled with gasoline, described as 'Molotov cocktail.'

About 6:30 that morning, Sgt. Bramble learned that the appellant and his wife had gone to the nearby home of a friend.He went there and talked with appellant for a short time, during which appellant gave the Sergeant his version of what had happened.Later, at the request of Sgt. Bramble, the surviving members of the family went to the police station for fingerprinting, in order that their fingerprints could be identified from others that might be found at the house or on the containers.In the meantime, the police had taken those containers to the police station.Thereafter, appellant and his wife went back to the house with Sgt. Bramble and showed him where the containers had come from in the basement and garage.

Sgt. Bramble obtained from appellant the names of two individuals who he thought might be suspects.Three days later, appellant gave the Sergeant an additional name, and on the following day, he gave the Sergeant a list of twenty-six persons who owed him money.Most of these persons were checked out by the State Police; one was dead, several could not be found, and the others were eliminated as suspects after investigation.

Within a period of about fifteen hours after the fire, the officers took pictures of the interior of the house and took therefrom various pieces of carpet and rugs, the pieces of cloth referred to above, and a plastic screen, all of which were admitted into evidence at the trial.The appellant objected to the admission of the pictures, certain jugs and the remnants of the broken glass container.

From the testimony of the appellant, his wife, and his son, it is clear that all occupants of the house had retired by 12:30 a.m.The appellant gave the police the following account: He prepared for bed, but went back downstairs to watch T.V.; about 1:15 a.m., he went to bed and sometime after 2:00 a.m., was awakened by a noise downstairs.Thinking that he must have failed to turn off the television, he started downstairs in his bare feet.He did not see the container at the head of the stairs because the light bulb had burned out.When he arrived at the landing, there was a sudden noise and a flash, whereupon he ran through the den into the downstairs bedroom, picked up his son, and ran out the back door.He then tried to re-enter the den through the side door, but could not because of the terrific heat and smoke.He heard his wife caling for help, got a ladder from the driveway, placed it against the upper window sill and helped her down.It was about this time that the firemen arrived, having been called by Mrs. Steigler.She had been awakened by the noise and smoke, and ran to her door, but was forced back by the fire, which singed her face and hair.She closed the door and called the firemen.Mr. Steigler was unscathed, although his feet were bare.

This version of the episode was repeated by the appellant on the stand.

At the trial, Mr. Lynch was permitted to testify as an expert in the State's case in chief, over appellant's objection.Among other things, he testified that, if appellant had run through the den as claimed, he could not have escaped without being burned or singed, because this flash fire had occurred and spread almost instantaneously throughout the vapor area in the living room and into the den.Another expert agreed; he computed the time interval to be 1.6 seconds between the flash and the time it would have progressed throughout the den.His estimate of time included an assumption that the fire had actually started at the far end of the living room, although in his opinion, the point of ignition was in fact at the southern portion of the den, an area in which the police had found burnt matchsticks.

The police found no evidence that there had been any outside tampering with any door or window.One window in the dining room at the rear of the house was open a few inches, but there were no fingerprints or other indications to suggest that any outsider had entered the house through that window.

I.

One contention made by appellant is that the Delaware procedure of failing to keep minutes of the Grand Jury proceedings deprives him of due process of law.This argument was considered in our prior opinion in this case.Steigler v. Superior Court, In and For New Castle County, Del.Supr., 252 A.2d 300(1969).We then ruled against this contention, and we are still of the opinion that it has no merit.

II.

Appellant contends that error was committed in permitting the police to testify concerning statements made by the appellant to the police during the few days following the fire.He argues that this testimony was inadmissible because the so-called Miranda warnings were not given.We disagree.It is clear from the testimony that, during this period, the investigation had not reached the...