State v. Miller

9 P.2d 474, 91 Mont. 596, 1932 Mont. LEXIS 61
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 21, 1932
DocketNo. 6,954.
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 9 P.2d 474 (State v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Miller, 9 P.2d 474, 91 Mont. 596, 1932 Mont. LEXIS 61 (Mo. 1932).

Opinion

MB. JUSTICE MATTHEWS

delivered the opinion of the court.

Harry E. Miller has appealed from a judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in the first degree on which he was sentenced to life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He predicates error upon the court’s refusal to instruct the jury to the effect that he might be convicted of a lesser crime than that charged, and, without assignment of error therefor, his counsel argue that the evidence, which is wholly circumstantial as to the crime charged, is insufficient to warrant the .verdict and judgment. Owing to the gravity of the case, the two matters presented will be considered as though raised by assignment of error in conformity with the rules of this court.

1. The information herein charges that Thomas Harrison Groves and Harry E. Miller did, on the twentieth day of September, 1930, deliberately and of their premeditated malice aforethought, kill and murder one John Joseph Wright, who was found dead on a southbound Great Northern freight train. The theory of the state was, and is, that Wright was killed by Groves or Miller in the perpetration, or attempted per *598 petration, of robbery, and, if the judgment can be sustained, it is only upon that theory; there is not the slightest suggestion in the record of any other tangible theory of homicide.

Section 10955, Revised Codes of 1921, declares that “all murder * * * which is committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate * * * robbery * * * is murder of the first degree.” The trial court is required to instruct the jury on lesser degrees of a crime charged, or included crimes, only when the evidence would warrant a conviction of such other crimes (State v. McDonald, 51 Mont. 1, 149 Pac. 279); consequently where, as here, a defendant is either shown to have participated in a robbery, or attempted robbery, during which a homicide is committed, or the evidence fails to show that fact beyond a reasonable doubt, the only permissible verdict is either murder of the first degree or acquittal, and the trial court is not required to instruct on murder in the second degree. (State v. Harris, 66 Mont. 25, 213 Pac. 211; State v. Bolton, 65 Mont. 74, 212 Pac. 504.) The fact that the state relies upon circumstantial evidence for a conviction does not alter the rule; if the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction, the verdict can only be first degree. (People v. Watts, 198 Cal. 776, 247 Pac. 884.)

No error was committed in refusing the offered instructions.

2. The evidence on which the defendant was convicted is as follows: Shelby is at the intersection of the Great Northern Railway lines extending east and west, north and south. On September 19, 1930, about twenty-five “transients” or “floaters” were there congregated, thirteen of whom were awaiting an opportunity for a free ride south to Great Falls and intermediate points; of these latter were Groves and Miller, who seem to have remained aloof from the other men, most of whom were gathered about a fire until the south-bound freight train left Shelby at 2:40 A. M. Miller and Groves inquired of Charles Neilson, special agent of the Great Northern as to when they could get a freight to Great Falls, at 10:30, and appeared at the fire about a half an hour before the train pulled out; they were described by Neilson and *599 others as follows: Groves was rather short and stocky; had a crippled hand and wore a light cap and dark outer coat with patches of leather on the shoulders and cuffs. Miller was about five inches taller than Groves; had a bunch or boil on his left cheek, and wore a reddish brown plaid mackinaw. According to Miller’s statement after his arrest, the two did not separate at any time during the night of September 19-20. Five of the men who spent the time, prior to leaving Shelby, at the fire, were Robert Clark and Charles Braekley, who had been in the forest service, C. 0. Dorris, who described himself as a “broken switchman on the tramp,” Forrest Haney, a laborer, and John Joseph Wright, an English war veteran, who was hard of hearing.

When the freight was about to pull out, Clark, Braekley and Dorris boarded a gondola car in the center of the long train. Wright went ahead toward the engine, saying that he was going to ride in a narrow space in the rear of a like car loaded with lumber. At the side of the train Haney met Miller and Groves, one of whom asked him where he was going, and, on his reply that he was going to Great Falls, said, “There is the Great Falls train, get on it.” Haney boarded an empty refrigerator car several cars to the rear of that in which Clark, Braekley, and Dorris rode; he pulled the “flap” in after him, which act probably saved him the sum of $160 he had in his pocket. Shortly after the train started, he heard two men go over the top of the refrigerator car. Likewise, shortly after the train started, Clark, Braekley, and Dorris saw two men — a short one and a tall one — coming over the train. They had their collars turned up and caps pulled down, and, in the dark, their features were not visible. These two entered the gondola car; the short one produced a flashlight and automatic pistol, and ordered the three to throw up their hands. While the short man covered the three with his gun, the tall one first searched Clark, from whom he took two $20 bills, one $10 bill, three silver dollars, and some small change. Clark was then ordered over the side of the car; he hesitated, and a shot was fired at him as he dropped. Brack *600 ley was then searched; he yielded but $1.40; he jumped over the side without delaying the manner of his going, and fell in such manner that he did not regain consciousness for several hours. Dorris in the beginning told the robbers that he had no money; when it came time to search him, the short man told him that, if he had “lied,” a hole would be blown through him; fortunately, perhaps, he had told the truth. Being an ex-railroad man, when Dorris went over the side, he was able to catch the train farther back; he mounted to the top of a box-car, and from there saw the robbers going forward over the train in the direction of the car in which Wright was riding. During the holdup the flashlight played upon the light cap and leather patches on the shoulders of the short man and also upon the reddish-brown plaid mackinaw worn by the taller man.

The train stopped at Dutton, and Dorris, becoming uneasy as to what might have happened to Wright, went forward to the lumber car, where he found Wright, huddled in the end of the ear, dead; he notified the conductor. Wright was wearing two pairs of overalls; in the pockets of the inner pair were found certain war medals, but the pockets of the outer pair were empty and turned, at least partially, inside out; letters, papers, a toothbrush and a case for glasses were scattered over the floor of the car. Wright had been shot through the body from left to right. The nature of the wound is significant; an autopsy disclosed that the punctures of the skin and of the muscles were in apposition only when the man’s hands were raised above the head, and, had his arms not been in the air at the time the shot was fired, one or both arms would have been pierced by the bullet.

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

Related

State v. Weinberger
671 P.2d 567 (Montana Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Perry
505 P.2d 113 (Montana Supreme Court, 1973)
Witherspoon v. Illinois
391 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court, 1968)
State v. Monteith
20 P.2d 1023 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 P.2d 474, 91 Mont. 596, 1932 Mont. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-mont-1932.