The defendant was indicted for the murder of Maria L. Crue at Groton in the month of January 1880. At the trial, in order to exculpate himself, and for the purpose of showing the existence of mоtive on the part of the husband of the deceased to commit the crime, he offered evidence that Crue and his wife quarrelled between the years 1873 and 1877, while living in Lexington; that, in 1874, he was seen entering his own house through a window with an axe in" his hand, and immediately after, with the axe in his hand, uttered threats against his wife and a man not named; that the same man continued to frequent Crue’s house as late as 1877, and Crue complained of it. He also offered to show that, in 1874 and 1877, Crue applied to a constable to come to his house and removе a man, whin; as he alleged, was there for improper purposes with his wife. He further offered to prove the ill feeling of Crue towards his wife, by statements, which were not in the nature оf threats, made to a witness in 1874 and 1877. There was evidence that the reputation of the deceased for chastity while living in Lexington, from 1873 to 1877, was bad. But there was no evidence affecting her reputation in that respect after
The evidence offered was excluded by the justices who presided at the trial; and the question on this bill of exceptions is, whether there was error in law in this ruling.
The rules which govern the admission of evidence apply with equal authority and force in сriminal and civil proceedings. These rules must be received in all cases as the surest guide which the law affords for ascertaining the truth of any alleged matter of fact, and must be the same both on the criminal and civil side of the court, whatever the nature of the fact to be investigated. There can be no safe departure from them under the influencе of a feeling of tenderness or humanity for persons charged with crime. Rose. Crim. Ev. (9th ed.) 1. 3 Russell on Crimes (9th ed.) 212. United States v. Britton,
It is a cardinal rule governing the production of evidence, that the testimony offered must correspond to the allegations, and be relevant to the issue on trial. It is not necessary that the evidence should bear directly on the issue. It is sufficient if it tends to estаblish the issue, or constitutes a link in the chain of proof. But in order to be admissible, it must either alone, or in connection with other evidence produced, be capable of affording a .reasonable presumption or inference as to the principal fact in dispute. The rule excludes all collateral facts which tend to divert the mind from the real question, and are calculated only to prejudice and mislead the jury. The existence of a criminal motive .is an element which it is often necessary to establish in оrder to give character to the acts and conduct of a party charged with or suspected of crime. In such case, the conduct or declarations of a party, both before and after the principal fact in issue, are admissible, provided they are sufficiently near in point of time, and sufficiently significant of the motive or intent to be proved. The rules which govern human conduct are to be reasonably applied in these cases, as in all other investigations of fact. They are to be so applied
It is difficult, in dealing with this description of evidencе, to define, as matter of law, the precise limits which must practically control its admission. Cook v. Moore,
It was clearly competent for the defendant to prove that he did not commit the murder, by showing that sоme other person did; and, as one step towards that end, he had a right to prove such a state of ill feeling on the part of the husband, existing at the time of the homicide, as wоuld furnish him with a motive for the commission of the crime. But the difficulty, is that the ill feeling here offered to be shown was not of such a character as to afford a reasonable ground fоr the inference that it existed at the time of the murder. It is to be considered in connection with the important fact, that during the time covered by the evidence, namely, from 1873 to 1877, the parties lived together as husband and wife, and continued so to live together as long as she lived. There was no evidence offered of the continuance or existence of any ill feeling, or of any occasion for ill feeling, after the removal from Lexington in 1877 to the time of her death in 1880. The whole evidence fails to show such deeply seated and enduring hostility on the part of the husband as to lead to the presumption that, without further manifestation, and under the concealment of kindly relations, it continued to exist and sо increase in power as to furnish a motive for the commission of the crime.
The defendant offered nothing, beyond the evidence which we have considered, tending to connect the husband with the crime. It was indeed contended by counsel, that some of the circumstances tended to implicate him, and evidence was produced that a strangеr was in town and near the place on the day of the murder. But beyond this there was no claim that any particular person was indicated, or suggested by any evidence, as having the means and opportunity to commit the murder, or as being in any manner connected with it.
The existence of ill feeling as a motive for the commission of crime will not alone justify submitting to a jury the question of the guilt of a person entertaining such feeling. It becomes material only when offered in connection with other evidence proper to be submitted, shоwing that the person charged with such ill feeling was in fact implicated in the commission of the
Exceptions overruled.