Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 10 December 1885
• Citation: 1 A. 887,64 Md. 384
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

1 A. 887

64 Md. 384

WILLIAMS v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 10, 1885

Appeal from circuit court, Somerset county.

J W. Crisfield, Thos. S. Hodson, and Henry Page for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Roberts, Joshua W. Miles, and J. W Dennis, for appellee.

ROBINSON J.

The prisoner, the captain of an oyster boat, was tried for the murder of Otto Mayer, one of the hands under his employment. The question presented by the first exception is whether it was competent for the state to prove that on the day before the fatal assault, and several days prior thereto, the prisoner had beaten and otherwise maltreated the deceased. The charge of murder against the prisoner necessarily involved the question of malice, for there must be malice, express or implied, to constitute murder. As bearing, then, upon this question, the evidence was clearly admissible. In the absence of evidence tending to show justification, excuse, or extenuation, malice, it is true, may be presumed from the proof of the homicide itself; but the state is not bound to rely upon this presumption, and may offer other and independent evidence tending to prove malice, and this, too, without regard to the evidence offered or defense set up by the accused. Having proved the prisoner had assaulted and beaten the deceased in the most cruel and inhuman manner just before the day of the fatal assault charged in the indictment, the state had the right to follow up this evidence, and show that prior to these assaults Mayer was in ordinary health, and that afterwards he complained of pains in his head and breast, and that he continued to complain up to the day of the homicide. To sustain the indictment, the state was bound to prove that Mayer died from blows and injuries inflicted by the prisoner, and in the determination of this question the physical condition of Mayer at the time these injuries were inflicted was a material inquiry. An injury that may prove fatal to one already enfeebled and suffering from great bodily pain, may not prove so to one in robust and vigorous health. The ruling of the court in the fourth exception is, we think, equally free of difficulty.

The proof shows that on the morning of November 25, the deceased being unwell, the prisoner gave him some medicine; that he attempted to work, but, being unable to work, or because his work was not satisfactory, the prisoner beat him five or six different times across the back and sides with a shovel or hand-spike; that evening the deceased complained of pains in his back and breast, and cried out, "My God! My God!" and said he was sore all over. The next morning the deceased again tried to work, but, being unable to wind up the anchor, one of the hands jerked it, and Mayer fell upon the deck. While lying there, the prisoner came up and kicked him several times, and every time Mayer shrieked the prisoner pressed his foot heavily on his throat. After these brutal assaults, the prisoner tied a rope around the body of Mayer and, fastening the rope to a hook in the port rail dragged him from one side of the boat to the other. The deceased again promised to work, but he was very weak, and in the attempt to turn the crank of the dredge he fell lengthwise across the deck, and while lying there the prisoner again kicked him five or six times, and again pressed his foot on his neck. The prisoner then tied the thumbs of the deceased with a rope, and by the means of a hook fastened to the rope the body of the deceased was hoisted until his feet were above the deck. After this, the deceased was put into a yawl-boat, and landed on the shore, where a few hours afterwards he died. The next day a jury of inquest was summoned, and Dr. Gill made an external examination of the neck of the deceased. In moving the head and neck backward and forward he at first thought he heard a crepitation, indicating the neck was broken, but not hearing the sound again, he concluded he must have been mistaken, and was of the opinion that the neck was not broken. Thus ended this imperfect and unsatisfactory examination, and the body was buried. On the twenty-seventh of December, one month afterwards, the prisoner was arrested, and...