People v. Wilson

Criminal Law—Murder—Poisoning—Defense of Suicide—Error in Evidence.—Where the evidence upon a prosecution for murder by poisoning of the deceased showed that deceased had stomach trouble, and received a letter from a pretended physician inclosing two powders, with the statement that he had learned from a friend « of his that he so suffered and inclosed a„ remedy therefor, on taking which he died from strychnine poisoning, and also consisted largely of expert evidence that the letter inclosing the poison was in defendant’s handwriting, but the defense was that deceased committed suicide, and wrote the letter himself, it was prejudicial error to exclude any material evidence bearing upon and tending to sustain such defense.

Id.—Poison Self-administered—Deceased on Trial as to Suicide— Materiality of Evidence.—Where the deceased with his own hands administered the poison that caused his death, and the defense is that the deceased committed suicide, any evidence which tends to support such theory, or which tends to show that it may be true, is admissible. In such ease, the deceased, as well as the defendant, is, in a certain sense, upon trial, and evidence of any acts, conduct or declarations of deceased tending to prove that he may have committed suicide is relevant and material.

Id.—Crucial Test as to Suicide—Authorship of “Poison” Letter.— The crucial test as to whether or not the deceased committed suicide is presented by the question, Did he write the “poison” letter? Any evidence that would reasonably tend to prove that he wrote or may have written the “poison” letter was relevant and material to the issues involved in the case.

Id.—Mode of Writing by Deceased—Material Evidence Excluded— Prejudicial Error.—Evidence was admissible to show that deceased had written letters to himself, that he was erratic, had boasted of doing several kinds of writing, and was material to be considered in connection with the evidence that deceased took the powders received from an unknown source and against the protest of a friend that they might be poisonous, and who reminded liim of the Botkin case; and it was prejudicial error for the court to exclude such evidence.

Id.—Circumstances Surrounding Death—Duty of Court to be Liberal in Interest of Justice.—It is held that the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased were such as to require the court, in the interest of justice, to be liberal in permitting evidence offered by the defendant that might in any way aid the jury in determining what caused the death of the deceased.

Id.—Possession by Dependant of Envelopes Similar to Poison Envelope—Canceled Postmarks—Evidence Against Genuineness— Opinion of United States Inspector.— Where, to support the theory that the poison letter was written by defendant, the prosecution produced several envelopes from defendant’s possession, which appeared to be of the same kind in all respects as the “poison” envelope, but which also appeared to bear canceled postage stamps from various postoffices outside of the state, the court properly admitted the evidence of a United States inspector to show that the stamps on six of the envelopes did not bear the genuine postmark and cancellation of the United States postoffiea, where he stated in full detail the facts and reasons on which his opinion was based.