*1 Riсhmond Virginia. Stancil Williams v. Commonwealth October
Record No. 5448.
Present, All the Justices. William H. in error. Jr., for Oast, plaintiff Francis Assistant General Y. (Robert Button, C. Lee, Attorney brief), Commonwealth. General, Attorney delivered the the court. J., Whittle, opinion Stancil Williams was indicted for murder Lee Cora His Williams, tried and convicted. was fixed at punishment death in the electric chair. The court the verdict of the approved sentenced the accused to be death electrocution. put of the court is of this writ of error. judgment subject on the material show that facts December night in Norfolk left her home Lee Williams Cora county company one Ross, and drove to her home to sister’s visit her father. Eugene She returned between 10:15 a.m. At time and 12:30 some be- p.m. tween her return home and (the 1:15 time of the a.m. arrival of State Police) Williams assaulted axe, his wife with from *2 attack she died on the of December morning
It is disclosed that Williams was 56 and years age weighed His wife was 43 and The pounds. years age weighed pounds. assault took children and of the place presence parties, was committed with such that bones were broken savagery throughout the victim’s The medical evidence discloses that death was due body. to the received. multiple injuries Williams, an son, testified to the brutal assault
Ivory eleven-year-old made his father his mother with the axe. upon
State Almond testified he and had Marr Trooper Trooper been called to the Williams residence; that arrived there at they ap- 1:15 on the of December where found proximately a morning they of blood over floor and thе accused and his wife quantity bed, “his side, wife was on the left hand side and he onwas the right on her arm and that an ambulance was called and laying right leg;” the wife was taken to the where she died soon Community Hospital thereafter. said that the accused admitted that he had had a trooper fight
with his wife and hit axe; had her with the that after he was advised of Williams him a statement in he admitted rights gave signed started over his wife out with Ross argument going Eugene and that he down “and struck knocked her her three or four times with the blunt end of the axe.”
Williams took the stand in his own behalf and more or less reiterated what he had said in his statement. On direct examination he signed concluded, “me and her were down in the floor fighting got that when I the axe and hit her two or three times picked up the axe. We were in the floor 15 or 20 minutes.” scrambling
It is obvious from the medical and the testimony testimony Ivory Williams that the wife was struck times”, more than three “two or head her was crushed and and arms broken the blows. legs
On cross-examination the court the Commonwealth’s permitted оver the accused, of counsel for the attorney, vigorous objection examine him con- attack his wife regarding previous viction for such attack.
While recorded, several error were one assignments treated in the brief of the accused and in us before was— argument to be cross-examined the trial court err in the accused did allowing for a conviction his wife and his attack regarding previous felony. trial and out discloses that record presence Mr. court; Axson, Mr. Commonwealth’s аttorney; jury, accused, in chambers
Oast, accused; for the appeared attorney where the took following place: Honor, con-
“Mr. Axson: this is in the nature of Your pretrial on attacked ference. evidence to show defendant plan put the deceased on that he convicted two other occasions and assault. is not for the My purpose putting him in this case but to show two other occasions convicting attacked this same he had in this instance. woman with the instrument
“Mr. that. We Oast: We are don’t know when going object cases, it attacked, was. If is true she was if there be such her, kill she back to him and lived went together attempts were they the time of this. together living Has
“The Court: the Rasnake case v. Commonwealth, [Rasnake 115 S. E. ever been overruled? 543] *3 No, “Mr. Axson: sir. court held it The was admissible to show * * * the attitude of the accused. What I is that his want to show motive for her was because she had been out and came in later killing than he and that he attacked her a of times with expected, сouple axe before. I want to show he had her with an struck previously Court, axe and was convicted this but and after given probation, he he violated it the same an axe. got probation doing thing His sentence was and when he out revoked, got penitentiary he came back and killed her.
“Mr. Oast: He was indicted for and she went back and maiming lived and were at the time this. She they together living together have divorced him or left him. You can have malice in could a split second. I think the this in is inflame the getting primary purpose jury. he
“Mr. Axson: On one occasion beat her with a stove poker. “The Court: had he been back from the How long penitentiary? “Mr. Axson When did out of accused]: [addressing you get the penitentiary?
“The Defendant: The 27th August, day
# * * as “The We will on that it Court: comes [evidence] pass up.” trial, cross-examination, In the course the Commonwealth’s asked the accused: attorney “Q. before, You had beaten her hadn’t you?
“Mr. Oast: I to that. object
“Mr. Axson: can show intent. The defendant reason “The Court: has testified her death the fact that assault which rеsulted in was she committing went out I think the Commonwealth show night. right intent, other instances in order and that her on this he beat occasion.
“Mr. We Oast: save the object point.
“Mr. Axson: beaten You had her before this?
“Mr. We Oast: object.
“The Court: I overrule the objection.
“Mr. Oast: I save the point. Mr. Axson:
“By “Q. had
You beaten her before? Yes,
“A. sir. “Q. you felony? Have ever been convicted of “A. Yes.”
The record discloses that no time had the accused his char- put We acter issue. hold that the admission of this evidence of a prior was error was There was no evidence beating highly prejudicial. occurred, as to when how it was or done. beating why The it was that the beat- introducing persuade for which tried was a dеliberate and ing being pre- hence murder in the meditated first The fact killing, degree. that he at some time had beaten her without pervious the circumstances character or it, effect of no furnishes killed her on willfully, deliberately proof premediatedly serve, it this occasion. could effect only purpose have, the accused would in the minds of the prejudice jury. statement in Commonwealth’s chambers indicated that attorney’s *4 so, for the accused If should not punished prior beating. basis for аdditional in this serve as a case. punishment the Rasnake case A of relied that it shows has no reading trial, In the instant here. case accused was on for application He had assaulted has murder. wounds unmercifully inflicting of a her use which over from intent to body weapon deadly kill could be presumed. common established law rule that in a
It is a well criminal prosecu-
841 is tion, the accused which shows or tends show that guilty proof times, even at other offenses other commission of crimes and in indict- are the one of the same nature as charged though they ment, is for the and inadmissible showing incompetent purpose words, it is commission crime In other charged. particular other crimes of not committed the accused competent prove like he nature would for likely showing purpose commit the crime in indictment. Ordinarily proof charged does not crime with which reflect light special any § Evidence, 309, accused 287 stands 20 Am.Jur., charged. page ff. of such evidence inflame and tendency prejudice its is entitled to be tried value. The accused outweighs on the accusation evidentiary him and not
made the indictment pending against on some collateral not in issue which he is not charge no It to answer. This is mere technical rule of law. arises prepared out of a fundamental demand for and fairness. 22A C.J.S., justice § 682, Law, Criminal 729 page ff. Evidence, Such has been the 7 Mich. Jur., rule always Virginia. § 48, 858, 866, 390 Barber 182 ff.; Commonwealth, v. Va. 30 page 565, S. E. 569; 2d 862, 874, Zirkle v. Va. Commonwealth, 189 S. E. 24, 31, 2d (and there cited). cases and authorities 23, 914, v. Day 907, 26, E. 2d Va. 86 S. Commonwealth, conviction for was reversed because of the admission of evidence rape of a offense state accused’s showing tomind molest women. There it was said:
“The rule to be derived from the cases that evidence accepted which shows or tends show accused commission guilty of other offenses other times is inadmissible if its is to only relevancy character to commit' an disposition offense similar to that but if such evidence tends to charged; prove (cid:127)other admissible, relevant fact offensе and is otherwise charged, it will not be excluded because it also shows him to have been merely of another crime.” guilty While there are limited rule as exceptions general pointed out Chief in McWhorter v. Commonwealth, Eggleston Justice 870, 857, 20, 63 S. E. 2d no such here are in exceptions
volved. 270, 274, Fleenor Commonwealth, v. 200 Va. 105 E.S. 2d also Roy See 3 . 2d 90 S. E. ' the defendant did that not. killed .Here deny wife-by hitting r That, her fact issue. with. axe-.. :The issue
842 he was whether acted and with case willfully, premedita- deliberately more, did her, tion. Evidencе that he had without beaten previously not establish that killed tend to he and deliberately premeditatedly her on this occasion.
“The intent with which act is is to be known done, from follow, which circumstances or act: that precede, accompany, correctness, intent be ascertained with from the generally may great occasion, and from the cir- conduct of prisoner particular committed. cumstances connected with the act to have been proved is the from which draw information of This source to legitimate ** Va.) Walker v. 1 Commonwealth, (28 animo. The quo Leigh 574, 577. is the verdict reversed,
For reasons stated the of the judgment aside, for a case remanded new trial. set
Reversed and remanded. Spratley I’Anson, JJ., concurring.
Eggleston, C. Carrico, J., JJ., dissenting. Snead JJ., concurring. Spratley, I'Anson, evidence, We there that is agree excluding relating ample assault accused a verdict justify previous but because that is we should not in the first true of murder degree; cut to death with the executioner to a short be a race provide chamber. the accused not the issue before us. The or innocence of guilt had trial ac- whether not he has a fair
issue here is or impartial trial, had the law. We not think has because do cording to instruct of the trial court of the failure his wife could considered attack the accused’s prior assault of Decem- murderous his motive intent show making 4,1960. ber rule in that in of a established trial
It been the Virginia long case, offer criminal Commonwealth testimony to may gеnerally That rule has been certain crime. subject independent that such be admissible one of which may testimony exceptions, , with, or intent, which is connected the motive leads up Common- is on Colvin v. offense trial.
843 v. wealth, 476; Commonwealth, S. E. Webb 154 137 866, 874, Va. 152 Va. 366; S. E. Commonwealth, Boyd 546; S. E. Zirkle v. E. 24; Nash, S. 2d and West Law of Evidence, Virginia Virginia, § 88. *6 and attack of the accused his wife was prior separate
distinct offense, for he was on unconnected with that which wholly admissible for the trial. It whether or purpose determining not he committed the tried; offense for which he was but was being introduced, allowed to be as the and the Commonwealth’s Attorney trial the for sole the motive judge agreed, determining intent of the accused in for offense he was committing trial. But the Commonwealth instruction, offered no and court none, its in consideration of the gave limiting jury proof. instruction; no such accused offered but both at the con- pre-trial trial, ference and and to the admission during objected excepted the evidence for This of itself was to sufficient warrant any purpose. the trial in it, court As we see instructing jury. properly evidence, admission of such in absence aof instruction to limiting to the accused. jury, prejudicial A failure to here to be made will lead emphasize point sought to confusion in trial of criminal in offenses While the Virginia. technical, error termed it is too unnoticed. may important go For reasons, these additional we think that the judgment court trial should be and a trial reversed, new the accused. granted J.,C. Eggleston, dissenting.
I dissent. The evidence uncontradicted is that the accused assaulted floоr fists, knocked her with his and while she was her ax there, beat with an so that she died lying severely shortly thereafter. The assault took of the children of presence place was committed with such and that bones were couple savagery broken victim’s throughout body. circumstances,
There and were no the verdict of extenuating the accused murder the first is convicting degree could have been reached. It verdict which is unrealistic entirely just these circumstances the that under have been in- jury may say thаt the accused had fluenced assaulted previously wife.
Moreover, conclusion of Carrico, I ex- agree fully Justice error in the ad- technical dissent, in his that there was no pressed on his wife. the accused’s assault the evidence of mission of previous affirm the I would judgment. Snead Carrico this dissent. join
Justices J., dissenting. Carrico, of the members I hold the the views for
Although greatest respect cannot, occasion, conform my judgment majority, am, therefore, constrained to dissent. theirs, I am this course fоr two reasons: compelled First, the conviction of the decision that has been reached reverses trial, defendant who has had a fair whose guilt beyond an fixed and whose approved punishment, impartial he has the crime able trial imposed by judge, appropriate committed. concern more other,
But the reason my deep impelling, Court, of this is that the reverses decisions majority opinion *7 the and relied for so decisions bench bar have many years upon therein enunciаted have become imbedded the rules and that principles not to now be our of criminal ought They system jurisprudence. disturbed. admit, to in a it is holds that prosecu- opinion improper majority murder, accused evidence of assaults the
tion for by upon prior that, rule “It is based It is stated victim. finding crimes to the accused committed other prove competent that he of would a like nature for of likely showing purpose in' the indictment.” the crime to commit charged too, of It, rule. is an take no issue with this I ingrаined part general avoid its law, and I our criminal would diminishing scrupulously of effectiveness. It is the failure recognize majority opinion rule with which take issue. general exceptions decisions, these We have in our recognized applied always, overturn reached will those decisions. The result today exceptions. other, similar, should be excluded offenses of Evidence although of for it is offered if showing merely purpose But it the crime indictment. to commit was likely charged the accused the сonduct and of if it shows be admitted should feelings relations, their or if tends victim, it establishes if toward prior element of the offense 7 Mich. relevant Jur., charged. prove § Homicide, 67, § Evidence, 48, 392, 393; 9 Mich. Jur., pp. p. are most relevant murder, malice, motive a and intent charge us, case before In the
matters consideration of for jury. of the assaults their existence was a issue. The evidence crucial prior material defendant his wife was proper pertinent, show their existence. Court,
This O’Boyle on December decided the case substitution 40 E. 121. mere S. By the name of the defendant name present place decided, we more than case now O’Boyle, before us. sixty ago, surely years was indicted tried murder woman with for the of the O’Boyle whom had lived, He was man and wife. killing, convicted of murder in the first to be sentenced degree hanged.
A witness, introduced the Commonwealth, was asked: “Did ever have before the deceased they any difficulty (meaning and the at the the nature those bar), (sic) and what were prisоner difficulties, if had any?” they defendant,
Over the of the the witness was objections permitted testify:
“Yes, sir; I saw them a have before this. He while difficulty good kicked her and beat her once she lived when sister’s house last my year.”
After careful and exhaustive and discussion au- survey thorities on the the evidence was held to have been subject, properly admitted, Keith, President, Court, then for Judge speaking said:
“The evidence to was not admitted as objected tending prove crime with which the perpetration chаrged, prisoner but the relations between their showing parties, state of other, and course of conduct each towards and as feeling the motive and intent with which the act was reflecting light upon done. Nor is the of such to be determined *8 admissibility testimony by time of intervened which between the threat or act length proved, evidence introduced, which is of the homicide under investiga- tion, the effect to but be attributed it bewill in by propor- tion its time, in of closeness and the directness of its associa- point tiоn with the fact under consideration.” Va., 100 at 792. principal p. 288,
“In 3 on (9th ed.) Russel Crimes isit said: “ murder, ‘On the trial an indictment for former grudges antecedent menaces in evidence as are admitted to be proof given ” Va., malice the deceased.’ prisoner’s against p. There is more of the evidence reason for admission compelling has been in case before us than was in the case. As true O'Boyle noted, case, the evidence was introduced O'Boyle through Here, witness, on the stand the Commonwеalth. independent placed defendant, himself, cross- was elicited from the after in de- examination, he had while his own attempted, testifying examination, to his fense on direct malice wife toward negate of self-defense. suggest plea possible in direct it
The defendant told the that was testimony, four his wife had been another man for fact that company in her hours the trouble between them resulted that caused death. said, her
He also “Me and was and when asked fighting,” counsel, “Yes,” hit without “Did she explana- you?”, replied, struck tion as to whether she had struck him first or whether she had him the axe. or the
Thus, was the defendant it who issue presence, put lack, malice, the motive and his for killing prior relationship It Commonwealth’s with his wife. was pertinent proper toward the defendant about his conduct Attorney Smith Commonwealth, to rebut his direct v. his wife testimony. 822, 40 S. E. 2d 273. first, or have
But case is not the time that we the O'Boyle only, such evidence under circumstances recognized admissibility case at similar to those bar. Va. 109,
In 17 S. E. we v. Commonwealth, Tаylor said: house and bed in fact Ira Mullins’
.....“The [the victim] fired about three weeks before into which he was lying material and evidence in view proper killing, important, over and over witnesses again, prisoner, testimony sundry he had done it himself or had it in a mentioned way showing it be done.” procured 21 S. E. it Nicholas
said: been show the of homicide cases
.....“In always competent his victim, towards conduct and proof feelings prisoner
847 that threats, made to kill his victim previous always attempts been received.”
We followed, overruled, have laid never the down principles v. in cases indictments O'Boyle Commonwealth, supra, involving 674, for murder v. or assault. 40 Lloyd Commonwealth, 258; 992, S. E. 2d 756; v. E. Evans Va. 170 S. 161 Commonwealth, Webb v. 152 v. 866, 366; Va. S. E. Colvin Commonwealth, 154 663, 476; Va. Common- Commonwealth, 147 137 S. E. Palmer v. Va. v. 110 wealth, 592, 398; Commonwealth, 143 130 S. E. Hardy 910, Va. S. E. 522. 67
In Palmer Va., 601, v. at Commonwealth, 143 we supra, p. approved the admission of evidence of statements made the defendant by victim, to his the such com- the killing although testimony proved mission crime, of another “to show the motive of the and to the the crime” degree [Emphasis added]. fix Vа., In Webb v. evi- Commonwealth, supra, 154 pp. dence of illicit relations between the defendant the wife of the deceased was held to have admitted, been properly although proving crime, another “to show .... malice and intent. . .”.
The bench and are bar not alone in since the Virginia relying, the turn of our O'Boyle case. century, upon holding case, courts several of our sister have states cited the with approval, with the of similar evidence: dealing question admissibility In State v. 157, 197 Wash. Richardson, 699, P. 2d evidence of offenses, far that us, admitted in the case before ranging prior was held to be beyond to show motive for the
competent killing. In Dietz 149 Wis. 136 W. State, N. Ann. Cas. C, 732, the killed a defendant sheriff while arrest. deputy resisting Evidence resisted arrest on numerous occasions, having dating far murder, back as seven was held to have been years prior admitted to or state show intent of mind. properly W. In State v. 108 E. S. case Long, O'Boyle evidence, cited as the admission offered the de- authority by court, fendant and refused trial aсcused and the de- ceased had a drink of before the whiskey together day killing, Prohibition court said evidence was admissible days. during that, a to show between “The feeling parties, friendly between the to homicide existing enmity friendship parties prior the mental attitude admissible show of each toward the other.” case, in the West cited, contrast last holding Virginia case before us, rule laid down would majority opinion, defendant, force trial for Commonwealth on accept victim, murder of she While as a tо his to him. stranger could, the defendant show his married life was unquestionably, malice, harmonious, case, if motive and such were the so as to negate intent, hand, other could malice, case, if such were existence contrary, prove *10 motive and intent. rule,
The as it, well as to have evolved general exceptions as both to the through long judicial experience protection, prosecu- and to the accused. To be rule nor effective, tion neither the should for or the one but not be exceрtions applied against party or other. Their should fall each the same effect with favor adverse force. not rule do to a adherence a with urge places Virginia minority in v. Common- As was said Colvin respect. jurisdictions Va., at rule “The is as well
wealth, supra, p. exception so held. established as the rule itself.” And it is almost universally § Evidence, 310, In 20 Am. it is stated: Jur., p.
“It be inferred from the rule stated above re- is not to [general] other crimes or offenses inadmissibility garding proof the com- the admission of evidence which shows or to show attempts one which the an offense than with mission of other particular all cir- cases and under all accused is must excluded charged are, on the several There cumstances. well-recognized contrary, rule stated. Evidence to and limitations upon general exceptions tends is admissible when such evidence crimes other directly always crime, it is to to establish usually competent prove particular intent,........” motive, the § ff., Law, 686, it is said: Criminal C.J.S., p. at- evidence of оther offenses committed or rule, “As general show, show, to it tends or when accused is admissible by tempted to the offense or criminal intent charged, respect purpose thereof, evidence which to show proper proves guilt tending it not be excluded intent is because tends or particular prove of an crime the commission discloses independent incidentally or threat to commit one.” accused, added]. or [Emphasis attempt so without that the seems holding, The suggest, opinion majority because there no admitted was was evidence improperly disputed occurred, or how was when as to beating why prior done. case, laid rest at supra, O'Boyle concerning
The of time as the of such evidence insofar admissibility relationship trial concerned. between the offense and the under charge such to be afforded Such difference in time relates to the weight evidence, issue before which is for the determine. There no us The to be the evidence concerning quеstion. weight given in- was contention, defendant no in his that the evidence brief, makes admissible the time not shown. because relationship did defendant can that the Commonwealth hardly complain de- beaten his wife. The how had why previously benefited, failure of fendant was rather than prejudiced, Commonwealth to show the earlier was ad- or how beating why show, ministered. As the statements made conference pre-trial the defendant had beaten his with an axe. The wife with- previously of such evidence from was in holding, by the defendant’s favor. seems also without so majority opinion suggest, holding, must be reversed conviction because Commonwealth’s defendant, cross-examination, to ask the
Attorney permitted or not whether he had been convicted If previously felony. be the must stand in the two things majority, way.
First, made, *11 there was no asked; when objection question and, no of the trial court was no ruling requested ruling obviously, made; record, no exception appears, the answer. §
Section, 19.1-265 of the Code provides: “Conviсtion of shall not render the convict in- felony perjury but fact of conviction shown competent evidence testify, may credit.” Hicks v. to affect his Commonwealth, 157 Va. E. 161 S. no in its determination This Court zeal recognizes equal the innocent or its devoted to afford each accused protect a fair We all that the law trial. would hasten to by way requires crime, throw a cloak of around accused of anyone protection him law. But our efforts should never insure due process go him a cloak extreme of about when such is not immunity, placing his due. the conviction.
I would affirm in this dissent. J., C.J., Eggleston, Snead, join