Tiffany v. Commonwealth

Decision Date01 October 1888
Docket Number379
PartiesJUDSON E. TIFFANY v. THE COMMONWEALTH
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Argued March 12, 1888

ERROR TO THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER OF SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY.

No. 379 January Dterm 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 1 August Term 1886, O. & T.

On August 9, 1886, Judson E. Tiffany on arraignment pleaded not guilty to an indictment, returned a true bill, charging him with the murder of Samuel Hocum on July 15, 1886. The facts appearing on the trial, were in substance that Lafayette Crandall and Samuel Hocum, on the day of the homicide, were in a field belonging to the prisoner and were there engaged in picking berries, when the prisoner ordered them out of the field. As they were on the way toward the public road, an altercation occurred with the prisoner who was following them, when the latter drew a revolver and shot Hocum. The accounts of the matter in the testimony upon both sides are clearly stated in the early part of the charge of the court below.

In the prisoner's behalf, J. K. Aldrich was called:

Q. Are you acquainted with Lafayette Crandall? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what his general character and reputation is, as to being quarrelsome, -- from the speech of the people? Objected to.

Mr McCollum: We offer to prove by this witness and twenty-five others that Lafayette Crandall has a notoriously bad reputation as a quarrelsome, bad-tempered, dangerous man, and that all this was known to Judson Tiffany on July 15, 1886 at the time of the shooting. Objected to, that it is irrelevant and immaterial.

By the court: Objection sustained, and offer refused.

At the close of the case on the evidence, the court, McCOLLUM, P.J charged the jury and answered certain points presented as follows:

On the 15th day of July last, Samuel Hocum was slain by the prisoner at the bar. The evidence establishes this, and it is admitted by the prisoner. There are two versions of the circumstances accompanying and surrounding this homicide. The case as presented by the commonwealth, in the evidence of Lafayette Crandall, is briefly and substantially this: On July 15 last, Crandall and Hocum were living together in a house not far from Stephen Tiffany's. Crandall had married Hocum's daughter. Not far from one o'clock in the afternoon, they went to Stephen Tiffany's, where they remained until near three o'clock, when each took a small pail, and together they went into the field of Judson Tiffany, to pick berries. When they got to the upper side of the field, near the brush, they saw Judson Tiffany, who ordered them out of the lot, when they came within a few feet of him. Hocum was nearer to the prisoner than Crandall was. Crandall heard no talk between Hocum and the prisoner until they were ordered out of the lot by him. Crandall and Hocum started to leave the lot, Crandall saying to Hocum, "this is no place for us, let us get out." And as they started to go out of the lot, Crandall was ahead, Hocum following him, and the prisoner following Hocum. Crandall got nearly to the road, and some 30 or 40 feet below where Tiffany and Hocum were, when he heard Tiffany say, "Hurry up, get there damn you, or I will hurry you with a bullet;" and Hocum then turned around and replied, "You have got to give me a reasonable time to get out, and if you want to shoot, why shoot;" and Tiffany got up close enough and slapped him once or twice in the face, with his fist or his flat hand, and he threw his hand up to ward the blow off. Then Crandall started back towards them, and when he came within six or ten feet of Tiffany, he hauled out a revolver and shot, and Hocum fell. And Crandall then seized Tiffany by the right wrist and by the neck and brought him to the ground. Tiffany said to him, "Let me up, I wont shoot you," and Crandall said to him, "Give up your revolver," and Tiffany replied, "I will never do it." Crandall then choked him until he gave it up, and then got off from him and went to Hocum, and turned him over to see how badly he was hurt, and he only gasped twice, and Tiffany was then running towards the orchard, by a downward course, towards the road. This is substantially the evidence of Lafayette Crandall, in chief, as to the circumstances attending and illustrating this homicide. It is the evidence of the only witness on the part of the commonwealth, who was present or very near the place or scene of the homicide. In the cross-examination of Crandall, there may be some modifications of this statement, but not in any very material matters. I have selected this witness, Crandall, and his evidence, as affording the most complete exposition of the case as claimed by the commonwealth.

The version of the defence, as presented in the evidence of the prisoner, is briefly and substantially this: Tiffany, on the afternoon of the fatal occurrence, went to his own lot to pick berries, and while there, engaged in picking berries, Crandall and Hocum came where he was and said to him "How do you do." He replied to them, pleasantly, "How do you do," and noticed that they had been drinking. Hocum said to him, "Why don't you let Steve alone? Why do you meddle with his distillery?" To this the prisoner replied "That is my business" and Hocum said "We will make it ours, and if you don't stop informing against him we will fix you in a way that you will wish you never had." That Tiffany said in reply "Gentlemen, get off from my premises, I will not be abused on my land. You shall not pick berries here." And Crandall said "Lick him, Sam, you can do it without my help, and I will go and sit down and see the fun." And Crandall then started away, slowly, and Hocum called the prisoner names, and used hard language; that the prisoner told the deceased to get off, and that the deceased put his hand in the prisoner's face, and then the prisoner told him that he didn't want any quarrel, that he had never struck a man in his life; that the deceased then struck the prisoner on the stomach and on the right cheek; that the prisoner requested to be let alone; that he told the deceased that if he wanted to quarrel he could have his drunken quarrels with his son-in-law, as he did the other night, when he got his face marked; that the deceased picked up a stone and struck the prisoner on the left side, stunning him; that the deceased then, with a stone in his hand, said "I will smash your brains out, you son of a bitch," and at that moment the prisoner saw Crandall running towards him, with his fist doubled up; that the prisoner was frightened and called "Help;" that Hocum said, "I will help you with a bullet," and Crandall said, "Shoot him, Sam, shoot him;" that Hocum, with a stone in one hand, put his other hand towards his hip pocket and stepped towards the prisoner; that the prisoner, having heard that Crandall and the deceased were desperate characters and quarreled among themselves and threatened to shoot each other, and threatened to kill each other, suddenly thought of his revolver that he had in his pocket, and jerked it out, and was so excited and scared that he could hardly realize when the revolver went off and killed Hocum; that just then Crandall caught hold of him, and jerked him down, and placed one hand upon the prisoner's throat, and the other on the revolver; that then the prisoner heard a voice saying, "Keep the revolver, Lafe," and that Crandall then let the prisoner go, and he got away, and that he can hardly tell how he got home.

Now, in the evidence of these two witnesses the leading features of the case as claimed by the commonwealth, and the case as claimed by the prisoner, are presented. I shall not stop at this time to refer to the other evidence in the cause bearing upon these respective statements, corroborating either. I have deemed it proper to call your attention to these distinguishing salient features of the case, as claimed by each side, preliminary to the instructions which I will now give you as to the law of the case; and after that I shall take occasion to call your attention to some other evidence in the cause as it bears upon this issue.

Under the indictment upon which this issue is joined, the prisoner at the bar may be acquitted of all crime; he may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter, he may be convicted of murder in the second degree, or he may be convicted of murder in the first degree. So that it becomes necessary for the court to instruct you fully as to the law respecting the degrees of murder, as to the law of voluntary manslaughter, and as to the law of self defence; and this we will now proceed to do. . . . .

Insulting or scandalous words are not sufficient cause of provocation nor are actual indignities to the person, of a light and trivial kind. Whenever the act evidences a deadly revenge, and not the mere heat of blood; whenever it is the result of a devilish disposition, and not merely the frenzy of rage, it is not manslaughter, but murder. To excuse homicide by the plea of self defence, it must appear that the slayer had no other possible, or at least probable, means of escaping, and that his act was one of necessity. The act of the slayer must be such as is necessary to protect a person from death or great bodily harm, and must not be entirely disproportionate to the assault made upon him. If the slayer use a deadly weapon, and under such circumstances as the slayer must be aware that death will be likely to ensue, the necessity must be great, and must arise from imminent peril of life or great bodily injury. If there be nothing in the circumstances indicating to the slayer, at the time of his act, that his assailant is about to take his life, or to do him great bodily harm, but his object appears to be only to commit an ordinary assault and battery, it will not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Com. v. Dillon
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1991
    ...is asserted, the defendant may introduce evidence of the turbulent or dangerous character of the decedent. Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 121 Pa. 165, 15 A. 462 (1888). This type of character evidence is admissible on either of two grounds: 1) to corroborate the defendant's alleged knowledge of t......
  • Com. v. Carbone
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • March 18, 1998
    ...Court admitted evidence of the reputation of the deceased for brutality, vindictiveness and violence. "). See also Tiffany v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. 165, 15 A. 462 (1888) (If there is testimony tending to show that the defendant, on trial for murder, was assaulted by the deceased and the lif......
  • Commonwealth v. McCusker
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1972
    ... ... one month before slaying). Here some of the events relied ... upon by appellant to show provocation occurred but a short ... time before the actual slaying. We cannot agree with the ... trial court's finding that appellant acted after an ... adequate 'cooling time.' ... [ 12 ] Tiffany v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. 165, 15 ... A. 462 (1888); see generally cases cited in footnote 4, ... [ 13 ] Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343, 178 ... A.2d 728 (1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 851, 83 S.Ct. 93, 9 ... L.Ed.2d 87 (1962); Commonwealth v. Woodhouse, 401 Pa. 242, ... 164 A.2d 98 ... ...
  • Com. v. Ewing
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Supreme Court
    • April 22, 1970
    ...333 Pa. 65, 3 A.2d 398; Commonwealth v. Troup, 302 Pa. 246, 153 A. 337; Commonwealth v. Green, 294 Pa. 573, 144 A. 743; Tiffany v. Commonwealth, 121 Pa. 165, 15 A. 462. Defendant's assertion that he did not intend to kill his wife made the issue of intent a question of fact for the three-Ju......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT