Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

9 S.W. 5

50 Ark. 511

WILLIAMS v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 16, 1888

APPEAL from Hot Spring Circuit Court, J. B. WOOD, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

G. W Murphy and A. Carl, for appellant.

Dr Williams' opinion as to the position of the deceased etc., was material as it tended to show that defendant fired the shot, and was not proper matter for opinion evidence, and its admission was error. Abbotts Tr. Ev., p. 571; 18 Tex. 498-500; 24 Cent. L. J., 105; 7 S.W. 1.

The instructions for the state are abstract and misleading. There was no evidence that the killing was done from motives of revenge or under an impulse of passion. Insanity is a lawful defense, and like all others is to be tested by the evidence. No case of insanity was ever more clearly proved, and yet the court refused to say to the jury, that if they believed that evidence to be true they ought to render a verdict in accordance with it. The expert evidence was uncontradicted, and must control. Abb. Tr. Ev., p. 494; 3 S.W. 539.

Review the evidence and instructions, contending that the court erred in giving and refusing instructions, and that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Cite York's Case, Foster, p. 70; Roscoe Cr. Ev., p. 942; 1 Hale, P. C. 26; 31 Ind. 485; 7 Metc., 500; 25 Iowa 67; 27 St. Tr., 1281; Ordronaux on Insanity, 421; Med. Jur. of Geer., sec. 24; Griesenger Ment. Path. Eden., sec. 72, p. 118.

Lord Erskine's delusion theory is a delusion and a snare, and the right and wrong test is doubtful. See authorities sup. Queen v. McNorton, Am. Reg., 140 part 2, p. 262; Ordronaux on Insanity, p. 422; 47 N.H. 150; 49 Id., 399; Buswell on Insanity, secs. 421-466; 1 C. & K., 130.

An attempt at suicide does not alone raise a presumption of insanity, but it is a circumstance tending to prove it. 100 Pa. 573; Buswell on Ins., sec. 226 and notes. The act itself, with its attending circumstances, is evidence of insanity. Ib., sec. 225.

Dan. W. Jones, Attorney-General, for the state.

The court did not err in the admission of the testimony of Dr. Williams as to his opinion of the relative positions of the plaintiff in error and the deceased at the time of the shooting; or, if it did err, it was not such error as to entitle the plaintiff in error to a new trial, such testimony being irrelevant and not such as to influence the verdict. Weaver vs. Caldwell's exr., 9 Ark. 339; Page vs. Parke, 40 N.H. 47.

The instructions of the court were in accordance with the law of this state. McKenzie vs. State, 26 Ark. 334; Casat vs. State, 40 Ib., 511; Caveness vs. State, 43 Ib., 331; Coats vs. State, Ante, 330.

The jury were justified in disregarding the testimony of the medical experts, if they believed, as they must have done, that such testimony was inconsistent with the facts proved. Such testimony was, at best, merely the opinion of experts and, in the language of Lord Campbell, in The Tracey Peerage, 10 Cl. & Fin., star page 191. Hardly any weight is to be given to the evidence of what are called scientific witnesses; they come with a bias on their minds to support the cause in which they are embarked."

The jury were the judges of the weight to be given to the testimony of all the witnesses, and their verdict being supported by the evidence, it should not be disturbed. Ark. Rep., passim.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

Williams was indicted for murder in the first degree, committed by the killing of Beatrice Randolph. He was tried and convicted of murder in the second degree.

In the trial of the accused, witnesses testified, substantially, as follows: For two and a half years he was in the employ of John J. Sumpter as clerk in the Sumpter House, a hotel in the city of Hot Springs, in this state. During this time a man named Norris and the deceased, Beatrice Randolph, went to the Sumpter House, registered as husband and wife, took a room, and remained there for some time. While there deceased and Williams became criminally intimate. He became fond of her, and told at least two of his friends that they were intimate, and seemed proud of it; told one Spring that she had given him six hundred dollars, telling him he might retain four hundred of it, and return to her two hundred, and had proposed to elope with him to Mexico, and to furnish all the money they would need. About six weeks before her death, he told Sumpter, his employer, that she had made a deposit with him of six hundred dollars as her money, and Sumpter directed him to put it in the hotel safe. On the morning of the 13th of March, 1886, Norris made complaint to the police charging Williams and the deceased with having stolen six hundred dollars of his money, and had Williams arrested and taken to police headquarters. Sumpter was aroused about three o'clock that morning, and went to the hotel office, and found him under arrest. He went on a bond for his appearance to answer the charge, took him into a room, asked him where the money was, and he answered he had it, but wished to give it to the woman. At Sumpter's request, he took the money, either from his pocket or shoe, and gave it to him, Sumpter promising to give it to the deceased, which he afterwards did in the presence of Norris. Sumpter retired and arose again about six o'clock in the morning, and found accused still up, and apparently nervous and excited. He upbraided him about the disgrace he had brought upon himself and family, and continued to do so in his subsequent meetings with him. Williams seemed greatly mortified, and had about him a peculiar facial expression. One witness suspected that he had been drinking, although he had not seen him drink. He had a wild, vacant, unnatural look, and appeared to be in great trouble. Deceased sent for him several times during that forenoon, the last time about half past eleven, shortly after which he was seen going in the direction of her room. Between that time and twelve o'clock two reports of a pistol were heard in the room of the deceased, and the chief of police, with policemen, ran to the room whence the report emanated, broke open the door, which was thumb-latched or bolted and found the deceased, Beatrice Randolph, lying diagonally across the bed speechless, dying of a gun-shot wound in her body, over the heart, and Williams sitting in a chair at the side of the bed apparently unconscious and bleeding from a gun-shot wound in the head. The chief of police spoke to him, but did not arouse him. He afterwards made some observation or gave some order about a pistol, when Williams suddenly aroused and sprang to a pistol lying on the floor, seized it and pointed it at his head in an attempt to shoot himself, and was prevented by the interference of three policemen. He made a desperate effort to kill himself, and in his struggle with the policemen manifested unnatural strength. He did not appear to realize his situation. When he was overcome the two following papers in his handwriting was found in his possession:

First.--"Please send this telegram to Col. S.W. Williams, Little Rock, Ark.: Your nephew, George Williams, killed himself this A. M."

Second.--"When you see the result of my rash act, you will naturally inquire, why did he do it? It is enough to know that since I have lost the respect of all, I have lost all, and hence I end my life with that of the one I love."

For three or four days after the killing he seemed dazed and did not appear to realize his situation. One witness said he was delirious from the wound he had inflicted upon himself. After the killing, the accused said he had taken a drink on the morning of the tragedy.

Evidence was also adduced conducing to prove that Williams, prior to his intimacy with the deceased, was peaceable, quiet, moral, religiously inclined, of an affectionate nature, and could not tolerate lewd women; that he was nervous and hasty, and sometimes would act strangely and do things without seeming to think about them; that he "was full of nervous peculiarities," and was wanting in stability; that he was possessed of personal pride amounting to extreme vanity; had an inordinate regard for the opinion of others; and seemed to have a high sense of his personal honor and accomplishments.

One witness testified that when he was about four years old, he received a severe cut on the head from an axe, which was followed by fever of a typhoid, inflammatory nature, that attacked his brain. Medical experts, upon an examination of his head, testified that, in their opinion, this cut depressed the inner table of the skull, and that, if it did, it would render him subject, upon the occurrence of an exciting cause, to an attack of insanity.

Many medical experts were introduced, who testified that assuming that the testimony of witness as stated was true, it was their opinion that Williams was insane at the time of killing, incapable of reasoning correctly, and so completely deprived of the control of his mental functions as to be incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong.

At the instance of the state the court instructed the jury as follows:

1. "The court instructs the jury that one, who, in possession of a sound mind, commits a criminal act under the impulse of passion or revenge, which may temporarily dethrone his reason, or for the time being control his will, cannot be shielded from the consequences of the act by the plea of insanity.

2. "That insanity will only excuse the commission of a criminal act, when it is made to appear affirmatively by evidence fairly preponderating, that the person committing it was insane.

3. "The court instructs the jury that the law presumes every man to be sane until the contrary is shown; and when insanity is set up as a defense by a person accused of crime in order that the defense may avail, the...