1 N.Y. Crim. 448 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1882
On the trial of the indictment against him, the plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be executed on the 10th day of February, 1882. Ho stay of proceedings has been granted in his case, and it is therefore important that it be promptly considered and determined by this court. We have given it the careful consideration that its grave character demands; and have reached the conclusion that no error was committed upon the trial that requires us to interfere with the judgment. The principal question presented by the bill of exceptions arises upon the exclusion of evidence offered on the part of the plaintiff in error. Insanity of the accused was not averred nor claimed upon the trial. It was in effect conceded that at the time of the commission of the act the accused was sane within the established rules of legal responsibility. Ho evidence was offered on his behalf with intent to show the contrary, but after the people had rested their case, and had given evidence tending to show that the killing was with deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the deceased, and therefore murder in the first degree, a witness, on behalf of the defense, who had known the accused for several years, was asked this question: “Was your attention ever called to any peculiarities or eccentricities in his conduct?” The prosecuting attorney called upon counsel to state the object of this .question, and the
The counsel for the defense then made the following offer: “ I offer to prove by a number of .witnesses in court that for a number of years past the prisoner has been characterized by peculiarities and eccentricities of conduct which have caused criticism with reference to his capacity mentally; and also that he is a person who has been known to be the victim of inordinate passion; giving expression to it in various ways, and at various times. We offer rhis’for the purpose of enabling the jury to consider the character, the mental condition, of the defendant prior to and in view of the circumstances of this killing, in order that they may be enabled to pass upon the grade of homicide, either as murder in the first or second degree, or manslaughter in the third degree.” And after some colloquy between the court and counsel on both sides, the counsel for the defense added : “ It is offered, as bearing on the quality of the act, whether murder in first or second degree, and also upon the question whether this killing does not amount, in view of the evidence, and the history we propose to show, to manslaughter in the third degree;” to which the court said: “I understand it is offered as bearing upon the question of intent and deliberation and premeditation, but at the same time not amounting to insanitytherefore the offer is rejected.” The counsel for the defense again excepted. At the time those offers were made and rejected no evidence had been given to show the circumstances of the killing of the deceased, except that on the part of the people ; nor was any subsequently given by or on the part of the accused tending to contradict or affect the testimony of the two witnesses who were present and saw the act of homicide. Whatever there is in the case tending to
But there must be a reasonable discretion in a trial court, in such cases, to restrict and control such evidence, and to exclude it when it is not entitled to any legitimate effect upon the question of the mental condition of the accused at the time of committing the act. In this case the evidence on the part of the people showed in substance that the accused, after having been excluded from the room he had previously occupied, by the direction of the deceased, returned the following morning at half-past ten, armed with a revolver, all the barrels of which (four in number) were loaded, and entered the house of the deceased by means of his pass-key. While standing in the hall he was asked by the deceased what he wanted there, to which he answered that he wished to see her mother (the deceased). The daughter asked, “ What for ?” and his answer was, “ Hever mind ; I want to see your mother.” The deceased was returning from the attic of the house, and. hearing this conversation, called
Daniels, J., concurs.
Note.—Affirmed, 88 N. Y. 196.