People v. Webster

The defendant was tried at the New York oyer and terminer, upon an indictment charging him with, the crime of murder in the first degree, in killing Charles E. Goodwin, on August 2, 1891. The jury convicted him of manslaughter in the first degree, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of nineteen years. He admitted the act of homicide, but pleaded that it was justifiable on the ground of self defense.

The defendant and deceased occupied rooms upon the same floor of the Percival flat in Forty-second street, New York city. The latter was unmarried, and the former was cohabiting with a woman with whom a marriage ceremony had not been solemnized, hut be claimed that a civil contract of marriage had been entered into between them in the month of January of the same year.

It appears from Ms admissions on the trial, that he had previously married another woman, and it was not shown that the ¡former marriage had been in any lawful manner dissolved. The defendant’s version of the homicide was, that upon the evening of its occurrence he came to Ms rooms and found his wife, who was then pregnant, attended by one Fannie Romaine, a servant in the employ of the janitor of the flat; that she seemed to be ill, and during their conversation she complained to him about the conduct of the deceased, stating that he had made improper advances to her and indecently exposed his person in her pres

It is not the province of this court to decide between these conflicting theories. It is sufficient that there was some evidence to support both, and it was the office of the jury to say Which had been- established by satisfactory proof, or whether each might not be partly true. Nor can we determine the grounds upon which they rested their verdict. We are bound to assume it was the result of conclusions or inferences legitimately drawn from some competent evidence in the case, but it is beyond our ken to discern the particular process by which

It follows that if errors were committed in the reception of evidence, materially affecting the credibility of the defendant’s ■witnesses, or in the comments of the court upon the trial, they must be reviewed and considered, for we are unable to say .that if they existed they did not prejudice the defendant or affect the verdict of the jury.

Thefirstexceptionto be noticed relates to the reasons given by the court for the admission and rejection of certain evidence in ¡regard to the conduct of the deceased towards the defendant’s wife, and the communication's made to the defendant by her ■with respect to such conduct. The defendant was permitted to show what she had to-Id him upon this subject upon the evening of the homicide, and previously, but was not allowed to prove by Ms wife or others that the deceased had actually been guilty of the offenses complained of. There was a prolonged struggle between the prosecution and the defense as to where-the line should be drawn in determining the question of the. admissibility of this evidence. In disposing of this question-the remarks were made to which the exceptions have been taken,, The trial judge correctly defined in plain and vigorous language! the rule of law which should control in the the reception and.’ application of such evidence. He stated, in substance, that no ¡conduct of the deceased justified the defendant in murdering

We do not think the language of the learned trial judge is fairly susceptible of such an interpretation. It was no more than a clear cut statement of a most pertinent legal principle. The charge was murder, the defense a justification, and the

Where evidence is admitted not bearing directly upon the main issue, but having only an incidental relation to a material fact which is the subject of inquiry, it is both the province and the duty of the trial court to clearly state the limitations of its scope and application to be observed by counsel and jury. This duty is especially enjoined in cases like the present, where jurors, however conscientious and intelligent, might be misled by the character of the testimony, and, yielding to an impulse of indignation, permit it to exercise an undue influence in controlling their verdict.

Evidence offered by the prosecution to show the general reputation of the deceased for peace and inoffensiveness was excluded, the court remarking that his general character was not an issue; that he was as much entitled to the protection of the law as the best and most exalted man in the community, and that it was no justification to the defendant for tailing his life ■whether he was of good or bad character; that Ms character could not, under any circumstances, be an issue in1 the case; that so far as the guilt or innocence of the defendant was concerned,, the jury must assume that Goodwin was a man of irreproachable character. The defendant’s counsel excepted to these remarks, and reminded the court that they attacked his dying 'declaration, and that in that respect Ms character was in issue. In construing these comments, it must be kept in mind that we are dealing with a case where the killing was admitted, and the general character of the deceased had not been questioned by the defense. While the truthfulness of the dying declaration was disputed, it did not involve the general character of the deceased, >and the defendant had offered no proof to impeach his character from the speech of people. What the court said had reference exclusively to the defense of justification, and did not involve the credibility of the deceased’s dying statements. On the contrary, the learned judge was careful to say that whether or not he should be believed, that was another thing,

In disposing of this branch of the case, we recognize the full import of the expression of this court in Sindram v. People, 88 N. Y. 196 , that ‘“it is desirable that the court should refrain, as far as possible, from saying anything to the jury which may influence them either way in passing upon controverted questions of fact, and perhaps comments upon the evidence might be carried so far as to afford ground for assigning error;” but there is a wide difference between the possible case there suggested and one like the case at bar, where mo intimation was given by the trial judge of his own views as to the credibility of witnesses, and his remarks were confined to a demonstration of the true quality and value of evidence of am exceptionable kind, and to a timely and needful caution to the jury to limit its force •and application within appropriate bounds.

A photograph of the deceased was admitted in evidence, under a general objection that it was incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and after it had been exhibited to the defendant, upon cross-examination, and he had stated, in response to the question whether it was a “just picture” of the deceased, that it somewhat resembled him. Subsequently, a juror inquired <of the court the object of showing the picture to the jury, and was told that it was admitted for the consideration of the jury in determining the question Whether they believed the defendant was in danger at the time he fired the shot; to give them some idea of the kind of a man the defendant claimed his assailant was.

Exception® were taken to the reception of the photograph for this purpose, which, we think, are not tenable. Crowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 465 ; Walsh v. People, 88 id. 458; Archer v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 106 id. 589; 11 St. Rep. 32 ; Alberti v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N Y. 77 ; 27 St. Rep. 865 . There was no objection on the ground that it had not been shown to be a correct likeness. The exception went only to the competency of the evidence. Where self-defense is the plea, the physical characteristics of the slain are, obviously, a proper matter of proof. Whether a man was of a large and powerful physique

We do not think any error was committed in permitting the district attorney, upon cross-examination of the defendant, to show the circumstances under which he met the woman with whom he was living and the kind of life she was then leading. The questions were all within the range of a proper cross-examination. Their manifest purpose was to prove that his relations to this woman were unhallowed and adulterous in their origin;that -their subsequent life together was that of libertine and mistress, and not of husband and wife, and that his word was, therefore, not entitled to the same weight as if his conduct had always been upright and blameless.

It is now an elementary rule that a witness may be especially interrogated upon cross-examination in regard to any vicious or criminal act of his life, and may be compelled to answer unless he claims his privilege. A party who offers himself as a witness in a criminal cause is not exempt from the operation of the rule. He is not compelled to testify, and if not examined the law provides that it shall not give rise to any presumption against him. When he elects to become a witness, it is for all the purposes for which a witness may he lawfully examined in the ease, and •he is not, in the constitutional sense, “compelled to be a witness against himself,” although, when subjected to the test of a legitimate cross-examination, he may be required to make disclosures whidh tend to discredit or to incriminate him. People v. Tice, 131 N. Y. 657 ; 43 St. Rep. 573 . The extent to which disparaging questions, not relevant to the issue, may he put upon cross-examination, is discretionary with the trial court, and its rulings not subject to review here unless it appears that the diseretion was abused. Great Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis, 32 N. Y. 127 ; Greton v. Smith, 33 id. 245 . ;

The exceptions which remain to be considered relate to the evidence of the witness Fannie Romaine. She was ostensibly in the employ of the proprietor of the fiat as a chambermaid, and in that capacity had no other duties to perform, with reference to the occupants of the defendant’s rooms, than pertained to the other rooms of the house. The prosecution sought to ■show that she had, in fact, become devotedly attached to the defendant and his wife, and was, at the time of the homicide, practically one of Ms household, and their relations were intimate and confidential. We think the People were entitled to submission of this proof, not as of a collateral, but as of an independent fact, and that the trial court properly allowed it to be so given. That such is the rule where the witness is hostile to the party against whom he is called cannot be questioned. As was said by Chief Justice Earl, in People v. Brooks, 131 N. Y. 325 ; 43 St. Rep. 294 , “The hostility of a witness towards a party, against whom he is called may be proven by any competent evidence. It may be shown by cross-examination of the witness, or witnesses may be called who can swear to facts showing it.” Garnsey v. Rhodes, 138 N. Y. 461 ; 53 St. Rep. 6 . The same rule must prevail where the relations of the witness to the party who produces him are more intimate and friendly than those which ordinarily exist in social or business intercourse. TMs kind of evidence is especially valuable in criminal prosecutions; for “there are no cases,” says Wharton, “in which party sympathy, personal friendship, family affection operate, as a rule, so* effectively as where life and liberty are at stake. In such cases, while (unless in the relationship of marriage, to be hereafter discussed) there is no exclusion on account of bias, however strong, bias is always of importance in determining credibility. Nor is this exclusively on the ground that bias prompts per

In the pursuit of this line of proof, the People were permitted to show, by the housekeeper of the flat, that this witness spent a great deal of the time in the company of defendant’s wife; that she was her companion, and went out to dinner with her in that capacity, and that she stayed with her evenings, and as late as three o’clock in the morning. The housekeeper was then allowed, under objection, t-o state that on one occasion the ¡witness, Romaine, had told her that she used to go with the defendant’s wife to hunt up the defendant, and remain outside of a well-known place of amusement two hours at a time, while defendant’s wife was looking for him. The witness Romaine had denied upon her cross-examination that she had ever done so, or that she had ever so stated to the housekeeper. The evidence was properly allowed. It tended to contradict the Romaine woman as to a fact which was material in the case, and related directly to the intimacy of her associations with the defendant’s family, and the extent to which she was willing to serve them. The housekeeper was also allowed to state, under objection, that Miss Romaine, while employed in the Percival flats, was an habitual opium eater, and that she was many times under the influence of the drug, and that Miss Romaine had told her that she could not leave it off or she would go mad. The witness Romaine had admitted, upon her cross-examination, that she was in the habit of taking opium, and in reply to the question: “Were you under the influence of it on this particular night when this occurred ?” she replied: “1STp.t any more than any other time.” She was asked if she had''not told the housekeeper that if she gave up the use of opium it would kill her. She denied having so stated, or that she haid any conversation with her upon the subject. Upon redirect examination, apparently for the purpose of excusing some discrepancies between her testimony on this trial and that given upon the examination before the- police magistrate, the defendant’s counsel asked

We are satisfied that no errors were committed on the trial to the prejudice of the defendant, and the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All concur.