196 P. 673 | Ariz. | 1921
The defendant, Nichan Martin, was informed against for the murder of Arthur De Steunder. The trial jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree, and fixed his punishment at death. His motion for a new trial having been overruled, and sentence of death having been pronounced upon him, the judgment has been brought to this court for review.
Although the defendant was tried and convicted and sentenced in the month of April, 1920, the case was not docketed in this court until March 4, 1921.
In the performance of this duty the facts of this shocking case, as they appear in the record of the trial, have been most carefully considered and scrutinized. We shall make no attempt to recite the facts in detail. They are entirely too voluminous. They will be set forth in a most general way, and no further than is absolutely necessary to a just disposition of the rights of the defendant and the prosecution. We have been greatly impeded in the discharge of the duty imposed by the statute because of the absence from the record of the various exhibits introduced in evidence, making it nearly impossible to give an exact and connected statement of the facts.
On October 4, 1919, the dead body of Arthur De Steunder, partly incinerated, was discovered at a point near the roadside, between Seligman and King-man, Arizona, and about twenty-five or thirty miles west of Seligman, and within the confines of Yavapai county. The stirrounding circumstances, and the condition of the body, indicated, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the deceased had come to his death by being shot in the back by a 38-caliber pistol, and
The proof points unerringly to the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime. It was proven, beyond all doubt, that the defendant and the deceased were traveling to California in an automobile. They were seen together at several places on the road. There is evidence to the effect that at one or two places the two men quarreled or disputed about money matters; the deceased claiming that the defendant was indebted to him, and the defendant denying it, with some angry expressions. They were last seen to
Upon being returned to this state for trial, and while en route, the defendant escaped from the officers, but was recaptured. He admits that he was traveling with the deceased, and gave quite a lengthy account of their journey from Chicago, Illinois, to Arizona, including occurrences, incidents, etc., many of which were in direct conflict with the testimony introduced by the prosecution. He claims that at some town in Arizona, which he was unable to name, or even locate, the deceased went away in an automobile with a stranger whom he called “Jimmy,” and that he never saw him afterwards. “Jimmy” was not produced as a witness, nor did anyone testify to the existence of such a person. He sought to account for the blood stains on his trousers by saying that he had cut his finger and that he had wiped his hands upon his trousers. He was unable to explain, or at least gave no explanation, why the automobile was stained with blood. He denied that it was. As to the discharge papers, he claims that the deceased gave them to him to keep. The story of the defendant is absolutely inconsistent with the facts proven by the prosecution in numerous instances and was plainly a fabrication — a cooked-up story to meet the exigencies of the occasion.
The law undoubtedly is that a conviction of murder may be predicated upon circumstantial evidence. That Arthur De Steunder was foully murdered by the defendant, and the body partly incinerated for the purpose of concealing the crime-, does not admit of the slightest doubt, upon the proof in the case, and we think that the jury was warranted by the circumstantial evidence in finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree. No plausible view of the facts can be suggested in support of the proposition
The information in the case is in regular form and sufficiently charges the defendant with the crime of murder. We have carefully examined all the instructions, and we find that they correctly, declare the law; by them the jury was fully instructed as to every ingredient of the crime and as to every phase of the case. All of the proceedings have been regular and formal, and there appears to be nothing in the case that would justify this court in interfering with the execution of the judgment and sentence. We .are satisfied the defendant was fairly tried and justly convicted, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
It is further ordered that judgment be entered by this court fixing the time when the original sentence of death shall be executed, as required by section 1177 of the Penal Code of Arizona of 1913.
ROSS, C. J., and McALISTER, J., concur.