State v. Ward

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Ward

111 A. 805, 119 Me. 482, 1921 Me. LEXIS 141

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJanuary 5, 1921

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 111 A. 805 (State v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ward, 111 A. 805, 119 Me. 482, 1921 Me. LEXIS 141 (Me. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Spear, J.

In this case Edgar M. Ward was indicted at the October term of the Superior Court in Androscoggin for the murder of Marie Bermer of Lewiston. From the evidence' in the case, we are of the opinion that the jury was warranted in finding beyond a reasonable doubt the following facts:

(1) The corpus delicti.

(2) That Marie Bernier was poisoned by taking internally sulphate of strychMa.

(3) That the medium through wMch it was conveyed to her stomach was wMskey.

(4) That’ the whiskey was furnished by the respondent and contained m two 14-ounce bottles called small pints.

(5) That neither bottle when purchased by Mm contained any strychnine.

(6) That one bottle was drunk by several people, one-half by Mmself and Mrs. Bernier, without any evidence or effect whatever of strychnine or other drug.

(7) That one-half of the other bottle was drunk by the respondent and decedent between six-forty and a little after eight o’clock in the eveMng without any poisonous or unusual effect.

(8) That he alone took another drink — offered to Miss Giroux— a little after eight o’clock.

(9) That there was then left in the bottle only two drinks of whiskey.

(10) That about half past nine he and Mrs. Bernier drank the two drinks remainmg in the bottle.

[485]*485(11) That in the bottle that contained these two drinks was deposited a quantity of strychnine that killed Mrs. Bernier in the course of half an hour and brought the respondent to the point of death.

None of the above facts is in dispute except the kind of poison which caused the death. A long controversy arose in the trial as to how long a time it would require to complete the solution of sulphate of strychnine in the whiskey. There was no question, however, that if sulphate of strychnine was actually mingled with whiskey that its presence there would be manifest in the form of either solution or suspension. It would therefore seem entirely immaterial in what form she took the poison. It was enough. It killed her. The wood alcohol theory was abandoned.

We therefore reiterate that the evidence warranted the jury in finding that strychnine was the drug. Accordingly the only question for consideration is, was the jury warranted in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent through the medium of the whiskey contained in that bottle intentionally administered the fatal drug?

Upon this question the testimony of the respondent can be regarded as of very little value except as it is corroborated by circumstances, probabilities and other evidence, which tend to give it probative force. When the respondent takes the stand in his own behalf, however guilty he may be, he always denies the truth of the offense with which he is charged and asserts his innocence. Otherwise there would be no trial.

In view of the above proven facts, the first important inquiry is: When was the poison deposited in that bottle of whiskey? There can be no reasonable doubt that it was not put in by the seller who took it all from one large bottle. Hence it was. not in the bottle when it came into the possession of the respondent. This conclusion seems to be made impregnable from the fact that the whiskey was originally taken from one large bottle, was all drunk by. several persons, including about a pint and a hall' by respondent and Mrs. Bernier, to within two drinks left in the bottle, without the slightest deleterious effect or even suspicion of the presence of any drug of any kind. It therefore follows that the poison was deposited after the contents of the last bottle were reduced to two drinks. If so, either Ward or Mrs. Bernier inserted it. If the above conclusions are correct he and Mrs. Bernier had [486]*486the exclusive opportunity. He says, however, that he did not see Mrs. Bernier do it, and her exclamation when in convulsions “he has doped me” corroborates him. If she did not, it follows that he must have done it.

Not only the logic of the case but the evidence points directly to him.

There was present with him and Mrs. Bernier that evening from a little after eight until this tragedy happened, a young woman and friend of Mrs. Bernier, by the name of Deha Giroux. Nothing appears from the evidence which indicates that Miss Giroux was biased or prejudiced in her testimony or had any reason to be. The jury had the advantage which we have not of seeing her on the stand, and of observing under a severe cross-examination her character,, mentality, tendency to exaggerate or minimize, her prejudice or bias, her disposition to tell the truth or prevaricate, her opportunity to know the facts in respect to which she testified, her appearance and manner of giving her testimony, and from these tests of arriving at an intelligent conclusion as to value and weight of her testimony.

If the jury had the right to test the value of her testimony, and we think it had, it will appear from the evidence not only that Ward had an opportunity to put the poison into the whiskey but that he has prevaricated upon the most vital piece of evidence in the case, the note.

It Should be here noted that in all of the details of what occurred .on that fatal evening, the respondent in a general way corroborates Miss Giroux as to all that was said and done except as to her testimony which tends to show his guilty acts.

Her evidence shows that Ward had exclusive opportunity to place.the poison in the bottle. She says that about nine o’clock Ward and Mrs. Bernier went into the kitchen and he said: “You send her away and I will go.” Then she, Mrs. Bernier, came back into the sitting room and he came back, not in the sitting room but to the shelf there and got the satchel and the bottle and the glass, and he went out my sight into the kitchen.” Mrs. Bernier was then “on the chair at the foot of the couch.” She says he was gone about five minutes. All this time he was by himself in the kitchen or elsewhere out of sight of both the women, having with him his satchel, the bottle containing the whiskey and a glass. This tes[487]*487timony shows ample opportunity, and it goes much further. The inference in view of the proven fact that there was strychnine in the whiskey, is entirely consistent with the conclusion that he took the satchel containing the strychnine, the bottle containing the whiskey and the glass in which to mix the poison and from which to pour it into the bottle containing the whiskey.

This inference is strongly corroborated by the admitted fact that the whiskey in the two bottles, which originally came from the same source was all drunk, except the two drinks left in the bottle which Ward took with him into the kitchen, without producing the slightest unusual effect, and that the next drink proved fatal.

Thus Miss Giroux’s testimony on this vital point was overwhelming, if true. We think the jury had a right to determine whether it was true or false, and found it true. The respondent denies that he was in the kitchen or elsewhere alone as above described by Miss Giroux. Otherwise her testimony is undisputed but corroborated as above.

But the most vital piece of testimony in the case is found in a note, written on a single sheet of paper by the respondent and discovered upon his person after he was taken to the hospital on the night of the tragedy.

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