People v. Worthington
Before: Temple
Synopsis
Criminal Law—Homicide—Cross-examination oe Witness for Prosecution.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused of murder, the animus of a witness for the prosecution may be tested on cross-examination, and it is error to refuse to allow questions to be answered which would tend to explain the relations of the witness toward the deceased, and to prove a spite against the defendant for having killed the deceased.
Id.—Impeachment of Witness for Defendant—Cross-examination upon Immaterial Matter Conclusive.—Where a witness for the defendant is asked on cross-examination if he made a statement which was immaterial and not binding upon the defendant, his denial that he made such statement is conclusive, and he cannot be impeached by the testimony of other witnesses, against the objection of the defendant, that he did so state.
Id.—Defense of Insanity—Evidence—Weakness of Mind.—Upon the trial of a woman accused of murder, her family physician, called by the defendant to prove insanity, may be asked whether, from his treatment of her for her ailments and all he knew of her, she was of ordinary good mind or was what he would ordinarily call a weak-minded woman.
Id.—Evidence—Hypnotism.—Testimony as to the effect of hypnotism upon those subject to such influence is not admissible upon the trial of a defendant accused of murder where there is no evidence tending to show that the defendant was a subject of hypnotism, aside from the mere fact that she was told to kill the deceased.
Id.—Declarations of Defendant—Insanity—Instruction.—Where the husband of the defendant is allowed to testify as to her declarations, and to a conversation between them, to show that she was insane, the court may properly charge the jury that such declarations were only admissions to show the mental condition of the defendant, and that her declarations could not be regarded as proof of the facts stated or of her belief in them.
Temple C. The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the state’s prison for the term of twenty-five years.
Her motion for a new trial was denied, and she appeals.
The defendant is a young married woman, having been born in England in 1870. She was the mother of two children. In January, 1893, she met the deceased while he was doing some plumbing on the premises where she resided. Her husband was then absent in Europe. Illicit relations were immediately established between herself and Baddeley. In February the husband returned, and soon after., defendant eloped with Baddeley, taking with her her youngest child. They went to Stockton, where, after about ten days, Baddeley deserted her, leaving her entirely destitute. The husband had, in the mean time, got on the track of her and took her home. He forgave her, so he says, because of the children, and because he thought she was not right in her mind.
Annie Kelly had been a servant in defendant’s family, and when Mr. Worthington went to Europe he employed her to stay with the defendant. Annie knew all about the illicit relations between defendant and deceased, and, as she testified, acted as a “ go between” for them.
After defendant had been forgiven and taken back by her husband she continued to correspond with Baddeley, both directly and by procuring Annie Kelly to write to him for her. She assured him of her continued regard and urged him to return.
In one letter to Baddeley, written March 18th, she said: “ He (her husband) said that he will give me a week’s time in which to find you, and when I do I must shoot you or be shot myself. So what am I going to do? I am sure I don’t know what to do unless I shoot myself. I think that is the best thing to do. I would not give you away to save my life. I love you too much to do that.”
[169]April 26th Baddeley, who had been away for a month or two, returned to San Francisco, and on the same day had a clandestine meeting with defendant. The meeting was by appointment, and was arranged through Annie Kelly. The record does not disclose the nature of the interview. The next day Baddeley called upon defendant during the absence of her husband, and, as defendant told her husband, tried to ravish her, whereupon she fired at him three times with a pistol. On the 1st of May, according to her story to her husband, Baddeley met her on the street and again proposed a renewal of the illicit relation. The next morning Mr. Worthington saw Baddeley in the street watching his windows, and went out and procured a pistol for his wife; he gave it to her, at the same time telling her: “ You protect yourself: protect your honor; I have brought you home and agreed to forgive every thing”; and further, “ Here is a gun; you protect yourself, and if he interferes with you, or attempts to interfere with you again, you kill him and I will do the same.”
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)