Territory v. Armijo
| Decision Date | 21 August 1894 |
| Citation | 37 P. 1113,7 N.M. 428,1894 -NMSC- 003 |
| Parties | TERRITORY v. ARMIJO. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, Sierra county; before Justice Fall.
Hipolito Armijo was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed.
A. B Elliott, for appellant.
E. L Bartlett, Sol. Gen., for the Territory.
The record in this case shows that defendant in the court below and appellant here, was indicted in the district court of Sierra county for the murder of Rosa Torres de Armijo, as occurring the 26th day of July, 1891, by choking and strangling. He was put upon trial at the March, 1893, term of said court, and, the jury being unable to agree, a mistrial was declared. He was again put on trial at the October, 1893 term of said court, and a verdict rendered of guilty of murder in the first degree, with a recommendation to mercy. A motion for new trial being overruled, and defendant sentenced, the case comes here for review by appeal.
The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The undisputed facts disclosed by the testimony are substantially as follows: The deceased, Rosa Torres de Armijo, was the wife of defendant they having bee n married about 30 years. That there were three children of the marriage, but neither of the children was with the parents at the time of her death, which occurred in the early part of the night of July 26, 1891. That defendant left his wife alone at their house on the morning of said July 26, 1891, and remained away until about sundown. That he and deceased were visited at about dark by one of the witnesses for the territory, who was asked by defendant to take supper there, but declining, he was given by deceased a cup of coffee, which he drank. That said witness left defendant and deceased together at their house, and about half an hour later he met and was talking with defendant at another house, a short distance away. That about an hour or more after he saw defendant he heard of the death of his wife. That defendant was present with others, in the early part of the night, where they were threshing wheat. That he left said place, and in about the time it would take for him to get to his home he was heard calling for assistance, and, returning to the threshing ground, he requested the aid of the men in getting his wife out of a hole into which he claimed she had fallen. That one of said men went with him to the house, and finding his wife lying with her feet on the bank of the hole, and her head in the water, they together dragged her out, and found life to be extinct. This hole was shown to be within a few yards of the door of the house. The night was dark, and drizzling rain. In a very short time the body of deceased, who, defendant claimed, had fallen into the hole in his absence, and was drowned, was by her brother, who had arrived there, and by defendant, placed on the back of the man who assisted in dragging it out of the hole, was carried to her brother's house, some 300 yards away, and there washed and dressed for burial. There was testimony by the territory that upon one side of the throat of deceased were three bruised and scratched places, and on the other side one bruised place, as if made by fingers and finger nails; a bruised, bluish spot on her stomach, as if made by the pressure of a knee thereon; and the head moved about as if the neck was broken. The brother of deceased also testifies that, on arriving at the house where the the dead body of his sister was found, he charged defendant with having killed her, and he remained silent, but in the course of the talk there he said his wife had fallen into the hole, and was drowned. There was contradictory testimony about the quantity of water in the hole, ranging from a depth of four inches to as many feet. There was also testimony of maltreatment by defendant of his wife, extending over a very long period, which will be noticed later on, and of the defendant having illicit relations with a woman to whom he was married within a short time after his wife's death. There was also testimony, both by the prosecution and the defense, that the deceased was subject to fits or spasms, mild in their character, and merely causing deceased to remain quiet a few moments but not losing control of herself, as stated by witnesses for the prosecution; and so decided, as stated by the defense, as to cause her to fall over suddenly, and remain as if dead. These fits were stated by the witnesses for one side to have resulted from maltreatment and abuse by the husband, and by the defendant to have been caused by illness consequent upon childbirth several years before. The evidence of maltreatment rests almost entirely upon the testimony of the relatives of deceased, though several other persons appeared as witnesses, and all residing in the immediate neighborhood. The record shows that this testimony is in great part hearsay, and often elicited by questions leading in form, which, for some unaccountable reason, were not objected to. As far as a record can throw doubt and suspicion upon the entire testimony on the subject of maltreatment and abuse of deceased by the defendant, this record does it. Thus, the brother of the deceased, after repea tedly saying that he saw defendant break the arm, the leg, and jaw of deceased, all on one occasion, finally admits that he never saw any such thing, but was merely told so by a third person a few moments after his arrival at the place where it is said to have occurred. The district attorney, without any objection whatever being made, propounded the following questions to the witness on that subject: The record has been searched in vain for any justification of such questions, and we suppose they must have remained unobjected to upon the theory that the jury's natural sense of justice would revolt at them. The witness, other than defendant, who last saw deceased alive testified to loud and angry talk addressed to her by defendant immediately before he went into the house where the two were alone; that he was given a cup of coffee by her, and invited to supper by him; that he left them together, and in the course of an hour, more or less, heard of her death, as already stated. Defendant testified to leaving his wife at the house, alive, when he went to the threshing ground, and on returning, and not finding her in the house, he sought around in the dark, after discovering that the water pail was gone, and he came upon her feet near the hole of water, and then gave the alarm. He denies that he heard any such accusation made against him as testified to by her brother. Three...
To continue reading
Request your trial