42 N.Y.S. 756 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1896
The defendant was tried in June, 1896, at the Ulster county court, under an indictment charging him with the -¡•rime of arson in the second degree in setting fire to his own buildings in the city of Kingston on the 3d day of February, 1896, and was convicted, and sentenced to the state prison at Dannemora for seven years -and two months. It was not claimed that he personally committed .-the criminal act. The fire was evidently the work of an unknown incendiary, and no connection between the act of such person and defendant was shown by any direct evidence. He was sought to be charged as a principal for causing the fire, or for aiding and abetting in the commission of the offense by the unknown incendiary, under provisions of section 29 of the Penal Code. His criminal agency was inferred from certain circumstances and omissions which will he hereinafter considered.
I see no reason to doubt that, under the provisions of section 29 itif the Penal Code, the defendant could he convicted of the offense charged as a principal, although he did not directly cause the fire, and the person who did was not identified. The fire being started .by an unknown incendiary, if the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s connection with the act, or to show that he aided or •abetted in the commission of the offense, or directly or indirectly •counseled, induced, or procured the criminal act by the unknown party, he could he held as a principal.
I am unable to discover any error in the able and impartial charge of the county judge, or in any of his rulings on the trial, except in the following, which resulted from an inadvertent mistake as to the evidence. On the trial the people, on the question of the motive of the prisoner, sought to show an overinsurance on his buildings, and on the furniture and personal property therein. With this object the people proved that the defendant, at the time of the fire, 'had policies of insurance on his personal property by which the same was insured for the sum of $2,800. To show that the value of the insured property was less than the amount for which it was insured, the respondent read in evidence the proofs of loss made by ¿he defendant after the fire, the value of the property stated in the
I have also reached the conclusion with some hesitation, after a careful consideration of the case and examination of the evidence, that such evidence was not sufficient to show the defendant’s responsibility for the fire in question. There is no evidence to* show that the defendant personally made any preparations for the fire. The testimony does not show any connection whatever between hint and the unknown incendiary. While it is impossible to read the testimony without having some suspicion of the defendant, I think the evidence was not sufficient to convict. In examining this, as in all criminal cases, it is desirable to constantly bear in mind the presumption of innocence which always exists in favor of a person charged with a crime,—a presumption sometimes lost sight of in this class of cases. It is now provided by statute that: •
“A defendant in a criminal action is presumed innocent until the contrary he proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily-shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.” Code Orim. Proc. § 389.
This presumption is strengthened in this case by the testimony as to the previous good character of the defendant given by a large-number of prominent citizens of the city and county where he had lived, which was uncontradicted by any evidence produced by the people. In a doubtful case, such evidence is entitled to great weight, Remsen v. People, 43 N. Y. 6; People v. Sweeney, 133 N. Y. 609, 30 N. E. 1005; Stover v. People, 56 N. Y. 315.
This presumption is further strengthened by the fact that the evidence offered by the people to show a motive on the part of the defendant to burn his property was, to say the least, weak and unsatisfactory. As we have seen, the people failed to show an overinsurance on the personal property. There was evidence to. the effect
Starting, then, in the examination of this case, with a presumption of innocence existing in favor of the prisoner, strengthened in the case by the overwhelming testimony as to his previous good character, and the absence of any satisfactory evidence of a sufficient motive on his part to burn his property, and there being no direct evidence whatever to connect him with the fire, do the circumstances and admissions proved on the trial so point to his guilt as to justify a verdict of the jury? It is a well-settled doctrine that, in determining a question of fact on a criminal trial from circumstantial evidence, the facts proved must not only be all consistent with and point to the guilt of the prisoner, but must be inconsistent with his innocence. People v. Bennett, 49 N. Y. 137. As said by Denio, J., in Shepherd v. People, 19 N. Y. 537-545:
“In such eases the circumstances themselves must be satisfactorily established, and they must be of such a character as, if true, to exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis but that of the guilt of the accused.”
See, also, Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295, 296; Miles v. U. S., 103 U. S. 304.
There are certain circumstances appearing in this case to which our attention has been called. The defendant’s wife was absent in Brooklyn at the time of the fire. He had refused to receive a lodger a few days before. He had obtained some straw, on two occasions, at some period before the 3d of February. On the night of the fire he had friends with him in his own house until half-past 10 o’clock, and then left the house with them, going to the hotel of one Lenehan, where he remained until the time of the fire. It might be claimed, from
It has been suggested that it is to be inferred, from the evidence, that the unknown party who made the preparations for the fire broke through the partition between the premises occupied by Burns and defendant after the latter left the premises at half-past 10 o’clock on the mght of February 2d, and then made the extensive preparations for the fire that were discovered the next morning, and that such unknown party evidently reckoned on the defendant’s absence, which he could not have done without connivance with him. But the unknown party or parties could probably have made the preparations for the fire wMch were found the next morning in a very brief period. He or they may have had some person outside watching for the return of the prisoner. What more natural, if Burns desired to burn Ms building, .than that he should break into the adjoining house, and set fire to it, and avert suspicion from himself? Inferences should not be drawn against the defendant, from the facts above mentioned,under the well-settled principles to which I have called attention. I therefore conclude that no case was made against the defendant, unless it was established by his own statements and admissions.
These statements were made to the witnesses Heppner, Cunningham, Van Tassell, and the chief of police. The statements or admissions made to the last three are not of sufficient importance to require consideration. As to the conversation of the prisoner with Heppner, it should be remembered that it took place at the time of the fire, when both parties were necessarily excited, and amid great confusion. Such evidence has always been deemed weak and inconclusive. Again, Heppner’s statement of the transaction on his direct and on his cross-examination was contradictory, unsatisfactory, and not probable. When the defendant came up to the building, Heppner was inside, with two other men. Other parties had been inside before. Firemen were at work on the building, and it was impossible to prevent the firemen and the public, under the circuin
Without Heppner’s testimony, no case was made against the defendant; and 1 think his evidence was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence, strengthened, in this case, by the evidence of good character, and in the absence of any satisfactory proof of an adequate “ motive. There are grounds of suspicion against the defendant, but I think the evidence did not warrant a conviction. It was not “of a conclusive nature, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainly that the accused committed the offense charged.”
The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted.
PARKER, P. J., and MERWIN, J., concur. LANDON and HERRICK, JJ., dissent.