People v. Griffen

1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 126
CourtCourt Of Oyer And Terminer New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1845
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 126 (People v. Griffen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Oyer And Terminer New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Griffen, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 126 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1845).

Opinion

It appeared on the trial that the prisoner was a farmer inChenango county, of about middle age, and with a wife and five children. He was a kind, inoffensive man, of very limited education, and of little or no force of character.

Coit was his hired man on his farm, and was of so affirmative a character that in a short time he succeeded in taking the prisoner’s place, not only in the affection of his wife, but in her bed and at her table, and finally took her away with him to his own house.

The prisoner submitted to that for some time, with a sort of stupor, and as if terrified into subjection by the threatened violence of Coit, and his overbearing treatment of him, until at length the neighbors, becoming scandalized, interfered, and three of them went to Coit’s house and got the prisoner, his wife and Coit together, in order to put a stop to that state of things, and induce Mrs. Griffen to leave Coit and return to her friends. As soon as Coit discovered the prisoner in his house, he became angry and said to him: “ I understand you carry a pistol to take my life, and you must get out of my house.” He then opened the door and told the prisoner to go out, which he did. In a few moments they heard a pistol shot outside the house, and they all hurried out. The prisoner was [127]*127then a short distance from the house, and his clothes were on fire. He seemed hurt, and walked along with a slow kind of a march, as if he did not notice any body, nor know much. He said nothing to any one, and made no effort to put out the fire. There was blood on him, and he was very pale, and seemed unconscious of any thing. It seemed that his pistol had gone off in his pantaloons pocket.

As the prisoner, in his wandering, came near to Coit, the latter said to him he was sorry he was such a fool. With that the prisoner stooped and seized a whiffie-tree, which happened to be lying on the ground near him, and with both hands struck Coit on the head with such rapidity that he inflicted two blows before the bystanders, though only two or three feet from him, could stop him. Coit died in a short time.

A great deal of evidence was given, going to show that from the time his wife left him, and for more than a year, he had been deranged.

Among other witnesses his Wife was examined, by direction of the court, and, also, Dr. Brigham, the superintendent oí the State lunatic asylum, at Utica, for whom the circuit judge had sent to be present at the trial. He, as an expert, witnessing the whole trial, hearing all the testimony, and observing the prisoner’s deportment, gave a very decided opinion that he was now insane, but could probably be cured.

The jury rendered a verdict of not guilty, on the ground of insanity, and certified that the insanity still continued.

Thereupon the court, pursuant to section thirty-one of the Act to organize the State lunatic asylum, ordered him into safe custody, and to be sent to the asylum.

In the following year, May, 1846, the superintendent of the asylum reported to the circuit judge, as follows:

Asylum, Utica, May 30,1846.

Dear Sir : You will easily call to" recollection the case of James C. Griffen, whom you sent to this asylum, from Norwich. He appears to me to be well. For a while he was in [128]*128a confused state, but the entire removal from all the exciting causes of his insanity, with occupation, has seemed to restore his mind. He is now somewhat anxious, though reasonably so, to leave and go to live with his brother, in Wisconsin territory, and does not wish, or intend, ever to see his wife again, or go to the neighborhood where she is. His brother here, and other relatives, will join with Mm in giving any assurance you may wish that he will thus go away; and I think it would be proper, for he is, I find, naturally a very amiable and peaceful man. I have told Ms friends that all this is left to you, and I hope you will have the kindness to write me soon upon the subject, and state what kind of a writing, if any, will be acceptable in order to induce you to see fit to discharge Mm. I again repeat, that I tMnk him well and not likely to relapse, and that the community will not be endangered by Ms release.

I see, by the papers, you are always at work. I wish you would exchange with some of our judges, and come into this region occasionally.

• In haste, but truly with great respect,

Your obedient servant,

A. BRIGHAM.

Hon. John W. Edmonds.

To which the following reply was made:

New York, June 4, 1846.

Dr. A. Brigham—

Deab Sir : I am rejoiced, though by no means surprised, to learn from you the supposed recovery of Griffen. An important duty now devolves upon me in regard to your application for Ms release.

If I was at liberty to consult only my own feelings, my confidence in your knowledge of the disease of insanity, and in the accuracy of your judgment, would induce me at once to order his discharge, merely upon the letter wMch I have already received from you in regard to him.

[129]*129But when I remember that I am called upon to let loose upon the world one who has, beyond donbt, taken the life of a fellow being without just cause, the danger that any laxity or want of care on my part, may hereafter be drawn into a precedent to warrant the release of some one much less worthy of trust than Griffen undoubtedly is, admonishes me that I ought to omit no precaution in ascertaining his restoration to reason.

A year has not yet elapsed since, on his trial for murder, I instructed the jury that he ought to be acquitted, on the ground that his mind was too disordered to render him responsible as a moral agent.

I was, at the time, justified in the course I took, not only by the nature of the testimony, by the opinion of the public prosecutor, of the jury, and of my associates on the bench, but also by the opinion derived from your extensive experience and enlightened judgment.

Ordering him to be sent to your asylum, was, under the circumstances, a matter of course, not merely that he might be cured of the disease which had produced such lamentable effects, but that the public might have an assurance that he would be restrained from any repetition of violence.

I cannot, therefore, but feel that I owe it as a duty to the administration of justice, and to the peace of society, to require, as a condition of his release, evidence equally satisfactory of his recovery, for I am fully aware that the character of the prisoner, of itself affords, if he has recovered, a sure guaranty against any further violence on his part.

There are other considerations which admonish me to be very careful. One is the consciousness that my own notions of the disease of insanity are much in advance of the rule of law as now established, and which I am required to administer. And the other is, the very strong sympathy for the prisoner which was excited in the vicinity by the grievous wrong which had been inflicted upon him by his victim.

It is in view of all these considerations that I am induced to require, as a compliance with the statute which allows me [130]*130to discharge the prisoner, “if npon due investigation it shall appear safe, legal and right,” to do so

1. That Griffen himself make the application to me.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-griffen-nyoytermct-1845.