Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1927
• Docket Number: 25379
• Parties: FRED WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

212 N.W. 606

115 Neb. 277

FRED WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 25379

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 1, 1927

ERROR to the district court for Douglas county: CHARLES A. GOSS JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Jamieson O'Sullivan & Southard, for plaintiff in error.

O. S Spillman, Attorney General, and Harry Silverman, contra.

Heard before ROSE, DEAN, DAY, GOOD, THOMPSON and EBERLY, JJ., and SHEPHERD, District Judge.

OPINION

GOOD, J.

For shooting and killing his wife on the morning of November 30, 1925, Fred Williams, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 20 years. To review the record of his conviction, he prosecutes error to this court.

The first assignment of error is that the verdict is contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence.

That defendant shot and killed his wife is admitted; but it is contended that at the time of the homicide the defendant was not in such a mental condition as to be legally responsible for his actions. It is also urged that, where evidence has been adduced, tending to show that a person charged with crime is not in such mental condition at the time of the commission of the offense as to be legally accountable for his act, then the burden is upon the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, every element necessary to constitute the commission of the crime, and also that defendant's mental condition was such that he would be legally accountable for his act. The rule of law contended for is undoubtedly sound, but the question presented is: Are the facts proved sufficient to sustain a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant, at the time of the commission of the offense, was legally responsible for his act?

Defendant called as a witness a physician, who, in response to a hypothetical question reciting, in substance, the facts detailed by the defendant and some other of defendant's witnesses, testified that in his opinion defendant, at the time of the homicide, did not know right from wrong with respect to the particular act. No other direct evidence of defendant's mental condition was offered, and the only evidence bearing upon defendant's impaired mental condition, if such existed, was such as might be inferred from the testimony as to his actions, language and conduct at the time of and immediately before and after the shooting of his wife. Counsel for defendant seem to take the view that some direct evidence by the state was essential to meet the evidence adduced by defendant. The opinion of the physician was based upon the assumption that all the facts set forth in the hypothetical question were true. Some of the matters in the hypothetical question were not proved, and, as to many others, the evidence was in conflict. Under such circumstances, it was for the jury to determine what weight should be given to the opinion of the physician. The state did not call expert witnesses as to the defendant's mental condition, but the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime and defendant's actions, language and conduct were fully set forth in detail, and from these the jury were required to determine the question.

Are the facts proved sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that defendant knew right from wrong with respect to the act that he was committing when he shot and killed his wife? The evidence is very voluminous and we shall not attempt to summarize all of it, but will outline some of its salient features.

It appears that defendant is, by occupation, a printer and linotype operator; that he and his wife had been married for about five years; that they lived in one side of a duplex house at 817 Park avenue, in the city of Omaha; that defendant was engaged most of the time at his occupation, and that the wife, for the purpose of helping to maintain the home and provide for household expenses, furnished room and board to a number of persons; that the defendant and his wife frequently had disagreements and some quarrels, but none of a serious nature until about six weeks prior to the tragedy. According to his testimony, defendant took exceptions to the conduct of one of the boarders. He testified that his wife showed a preference for this man, conducted the home and provided articles of food in deference to his, rather than to defendant's, wishes; that six weeks prior to the tragedy he and his wife had a quarrel concerning the matter, he at that time insisting that the boarder must leave the home, or defendant would do so; that his wife refused to accede to defendant's wishes; that thereupon defendant left his home and went to another place in the city of Omaha, staying about a week, and then moved to Sioux City, where he was employed at his occupation. While he was in Sioux City his wife brought an action against him for divorce. Two weeks before the fatal shooting, defendant visited his wife in a fruitless effort to effect a reconciliation. He then returned to Sioux City.

On Friday, the 28th of November, 1925, defendant was served with notice of an application for alimony in the divorce action, theretofore begun by his wife. On the next day he purchased a revolver, a box of cartridges and a knife. He testified that he purchased the revolver with the idea of committing suicide, but there is no evidence that he made any attempt upon his own life. According to his testimony, at about 3 o'clock on Sunday, the day following the purchase of the knife and revolver, he drove to Omaha, for the purpose of making one final effort to effect a reconciliation with his wife. He testified that he reached Omaha at about 11 o'clock in the evening, and between 11 and 12 o'clock went to his home, or the home of his wife, crawled through a window into the basement of the home, intending to stay there until the next morning, and, after the boarders had gone, to see his wife. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that there was a bed or fit place in the basement for him to sleep. He further testified that after he had been in the basement some time, perhaps 30 minutes, he heard footsteps on the floor above, going to his wife's room, which excited a suspicion of misconduct on her part; that he ascended the stairs from the basement into the kitchen, thence into the dining-room and into the living-room, which was also used as a sleeping-room by his wife; that as he went in he switched on the electric lights in the dining-room and living-room and discovered his wife and the boarder in a compromising situation; that he fired one shot and thereafter did not remember anything until he found himself telephoning to the police. He claims not to remember nor to have any knowledge of what transpired for a period of 30 or 40 minutes, and to have an imperfect knowledge and recollection of what occurred until some time the next morning.

From other evidence, it appears without question that defendant not only shot the boarder through the shoulder, but that he brutally beat his wife on the head and face with his revolver, inflicted a wound upon her with a knife, and, while he was struggling with her, another roomer on the second floor, hearing the noise, came part way down the stairs and saw defendant and his wife struggling near the foot of the stairs; that defendant pointed the revolver at this roomer and told him to go back to his room. The roomer needed no second admonition to obey the direction. At about this time Mrs. Williams escaped from defendant and fled from the house, and collapsed upon the sidewalk in front of a public garage a few yards from the Williams home. Other witnesses, who saw her as she was leaving, testified that she was staggering and was going rather slowly until she collapsed. One of the employees of the garage, assisted by a stranger, lifted and carried her into the office and placed her in a chair. At that time she was covered with blood, and stated that her husband had beaten her, and asked to be taken to a hospital. A call was telephoned to the police station. Fifteen or twenty minutes later defendant entered the garage office, where his wife was, and when she saw him she said "My God there he is; he is going to kill me," or words of like import. One of the bystanders placed a hand on defendant's arm, and he responded, "I know what I am doing," and almost immediately fired four shots into his wife's...