Territory v. Baker
| Decision Date | 29 January 1887 |
| Citation | 13 P. 30,4 N.M. 236,1887 -NMSC- 021 |
| Parties | TERRITORY v. BAKER. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Appeal from district court, San Miguel county.
Indictment for murder.
J. D O' Bryan, for appellant.
Wm Breeden, Atty. Gen., for the Territory.
The appellant, Theodore Baker, was indicted in the district court of Colfax county for the murder of Frank S. Unruh, at the April term, 1886. A change of venue was granted, on the application of the defendant to San Miguel county. The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged. The record is very voluminous, the evidence covering many pages of transcript. Appellant assigns nine errors in the record. In order to reach a satisfactory conclusion, it will be necessary to give at least a fair synopsis of all the evidence offered in the case. The facts may be stated briefly as follows: "The deceased, Frank S. Unruh, according to the testimony of the witness Cook, was acquainted with the defendant, and, for the purpose of aiding him to secure a claim upon the public lands, and for the purpose of giving him a home, sent the witness Cook to the town of Springer, where Baker, it seems, then lived, and had him conveyed to the ranch of the deceased, Unruh, where it was understood Baker should assist about the house, and aid the deceased in doing such work as might be required upon the premises, until he, the deceased, could aid him to locate a claim near by. This was in July, 1885. Baker continued to reside in the family of Unruh down to the date of the homicide, in December of that year. From all the facts in the case it is quite apparent that the chief motive on the part of Unruh in inducing Baker to come to his house and make his home there was for the purpose of assistance to Baker in getting a home, and at the same time secure a location upon the public land as a ranch of his own. Baker was not hired by Unruh, nor did he do work for him in the ordinary sense of a hired man or employe. He was admitted into the family as a mere act of favor and friendship on the part of Unruh, from a sense of disinterested friendship and kindness. Baker seems to have been kind and attentive to Mrs. Unruh. He aided her in doing small chores around the house. Unruh was a surveyor by occupation, and his business frequently called him away from home for many weeks at a time, leaving appellant, Baker alone with Mrs. Unruh and a little child less than three years old. The evidence shows that in a short time after Baker became an inmate of the family, he began, in a confidential way, to inform Mrs. Unruh, the wife of the deceased, of numerous acts of infidelity on the part of the deceased with women in Arizona. He also told her repeatedly that her husband was very heartily and universally hated by the people in the country, and by these means, in a measure, undermined the confidence and affection of the wife in her husband. A more or less confidential and intimate relationship sprang up between the appellant and the wife of the deceased, owing to the kindness manifested by appellant in doing her favors about the house and aiding her in the work. She became attached to him and confided in him, which ripened into a criminal intimacy, in the month of September, about two months after he came into the family. Mrs. Unruh testified that there was a promise of marriage made by the defendant before accomplishing his purpose of sexual pleasure. The agreement and understanding, however, on the part of the wife was that the marriage should be consummated after she had procured a divorce from her husband. It does not appear whether the defendant and the wife of the deceased agreed upon any particular course to be pursued in order to free herself from her marriage obligations to her husband, except in a general way, through the medium of a divorce. Their criminal intimacy, although not positively known to the deceased husband, was nevertheless suspected. He became jealous of the defendant, and from time to time complained of the conduct of his wife. The jealousy and suspicion of the husband was made known to the defendant, Baker, by the wife. She told Baker that her husband was watching, or would watch him. Thereupon Baker remarked that, "if he did, he would never come home alive." It is further shown in evidence by the witness Bryerle that some two or three weeks prior to the homicide, appellant, Baker, was at the house or camp of Bryerle and one Davenport. He there stated that there was trouble between himself and Unruh, and that, "if Unruh didn't behave himself, he would take a six-shooter and pound his head off." Bryerle also testified that during hay-making season, or the hauling season, he was employed by Unruh to haul hay, and was at Unruh's house every other night for two weeks; that Mrs. Unruh, the baby, Baker, and himself were all the persons usually at the house. When Unruh was there, he could tell from appearances that there was trouble between Unruh and defendant and Unruh's wife, but did not inquire the cause, for the reason that it was none of his business. He stated that it seemed to him that Baker was determined to remain at Unruh's house, whether Unruh was willing or not. On Saturday before the Monday night when the homicide took place, a quarrel occurred between Unruh and his wife. This quarrel was due to the jealousy of the deceased, and the conduct of Mrs. Unruh in relation to Baker. His feelings, however, seemed to have cooled down somewhat after going away on Sunday. On Monday afternoon the bitter feeling between the husband and wife was renewed in consequence of the husband's seeing or hearing an undertoned or whispered conversation between Baker and Mrs. Unruh. Unruh was drinking a little for the first time, as Mrs. Unruh testifies, during their married life. The wife sent down and got a bottle of home-made wine from the cellar. This bottle was quickly used up. The deceased wanted more, and went to the cellar and rolled a barrel out. About this time, Unruh, the deceased, stated to his wife, in the language of the witness Mrs. Unruh, "he intended to knock h--1 out of the ranch." The defendant, Baker, had told the wife during the forenoon of the same day (Monday) that Unruh had said "he intended to kill all three of them," meaning Baker, Mrs. Unruh, and himself. This statement, however, was made before he became inflamed in any degree with wine. Being apprehensive of danger, Mrs. Unruh stated that she took her husband's pistol, a 44-caliber Colt, from the place where it was accustomed to hang, over the wash-stand in their room, and hid it under the head of the bed in their room. An hour or two before the difficulty arose, the defendant, Baker, inquired of Mrs. Unruh the whereabouts of the pistol of the deceased. She told him, and at his request gave the pistol to him, and he took it into his own room. Mrs. Unruh testified that the pistol was hid by her, and afterwards delivered into the possession of the defendant, to be put in his room where his own pistol was, for the purpose of preventing deceased getting hold of it. Just before dark defendant, Baker, went out of the house for the purpose of finding the deceased, and bringing him to his supper. He returned the first time without him. The second time both men came into the house together. By this time it was dark. Supper being upon the table, the deceased and appellant sat down, Mrs. Unruh standing at the head of the table. Deceased asked her why she didn't come to her supper. She said she didn't want any supper. He replied by saying that "as he paid for the grub, he would eat." By this time the deceased was more or less inflamed or intoxicated from the use of the wine. At the time of taking his seat at the table, he began cursing and swearing and calling Baker names, and said, among other things, that "he would cut Baker's heart out and hang it on a pole," or words to that effect. Baker got up from the table and went into his room, came back to the door opening into the dining-room and inquired of Unruh if he was referring to him, or speaking of him. Unruh then sprang up from the table. They had a tussle in the other room, then there was a shot fired, and Unruh said: "My God, Kate, I am shot!" Baker said: There were several shots fired after that, and then Unruh ran out of the house, and Baker ran after him. He (Baker) came out and got to the door, and then went back to the room, then he went out again, and just as he went out the light went out.
The following part of Mrs. Unruh's testimony will be copied as appears from the transcript: "(12) Who went back to his room? Answer. Baker did. (13) Did he go out of the house then? A. Yes, sir. (14) The Court to Witness. Do you say at that time the light went out? A. Yes, sir; and after that there were shots fired. It was not long before Baker came back and called for me to open the door. He said he was shot, and Frank was killed. (15) What occurred next? A. I asked him if he was sure he was killed, and he said 'Yes.' I asked him if he was going to let him lay there, and he said he daresn't move him. I said, 'You had better go and cover him up.' After he went down to cover him up, I heard two more shots fired. When he came back I asked him what he was shooting at, and he said he was shooting at a 'coyote.' He wanted me to stay there until he went to Cook's; but I would not do it, and so I went to Cook's with him. (16) How did you go over to Cook's? A. We went over in a wagon. (17) If you had any conversation with Baker going over there, state what it was. A. He told me to say there were no shots fired in the house. (18) How many shots were there fired in the house if you recollect? A. I don't know how many there was. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial