Case Title: State v. Crow

Citation: 104 Ariz. 579, 457 P.2d 256

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1969-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
104 Ariz. 579 (1969) 457 P.2d 256 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Eugene L. CROW, Appellant. No. 1838. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. July 16, 1969. *580 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., Carl Waag, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. Lewis, Roca, Beauchamp & Linton, by, Robert A. Jensen, Wood & Platt, by, William E. Platt, Jr., Phoenix, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice: Eugene L. Crow, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged with and convicted of two counts of first-degree murder the first on Darwin Parks, his father-in-law, and the second on David Parks, his brother-in-law. He was sentenced on each count to life imprisonment to run concurrently. He was charged and convicted of a third count of assault with intent to commit murder upon his wife, Brenda Parks Crow, for which he was sentenced to serve not less than ten years nor more than twelve years at the Arizona State Penitentiary, to run consecutively with the two murder counts. From the judgment and sentence of the court he appeals. Defendant was married to Brenda Parks in October 1959. After living in California for a time they returned to Casa Grande, Arizona, in 1963, where defendant was employed at the local school. The Crows had one child, Sandra, who was six years of age at the time of the trial. They lived on a small farm on the outskirts of Casa Grande. Marital troubles developed in 1966, and on November 3d they separated. Defendant remained on the farm, and Brenda and the daughter lived with her parents. From the date of their separation until November 15th defendant practically every day tried to persuade his wife to return to him. On Tuesday, the 15th, they met at the farm, and, using two notes one of which purported to be a last will and testament, defendant threatened to take both their lives, as a result of which Brenda agreed to a reconciliation which never took place. From that date until the 19th the date of the shooting there were various meetings between defendant and his wife which resulted in the defendant's telling Brenda that he would not contest a divorce and agreed that she could come to the farm on Saturday to pick up her possessions, but that she was not to bring Sandra with her, as it would upset the child. On Saturday morning about nine a.m. the defendant went to the Parks' home where he was met by his daughter whom he kissed, and talked briefly with Brenda. He had previously received a telephone call that some of the cattle had strayed, and he was on his way to round them up, but promised to return to the Parks' residence with Sandra's horse after he had rounded up the cattle at the farm. He returned the horse to Sandra later, and exchanged a few *581 friendly words with Darwin Parks. He thereafter returned to the Parks' residence where he met David Parks, Brenda's brother, who was unexpectedly home from college. It was at that time that he told Brenda that they could come over and pick up her possessions. After he returned to the farm, defendant watched television, opened a can of beer, and awaited the arrival of his wife and the Parkses. According to his testimony, he remembered a gun which he had borrowed from his father to kill a dog. The gun was in a drawer with some of Brenda's clothing in a closet, and, in order to avoid trouble, he took it and placed it in a drawer of the television set. When Brenda arrived, accompanied by her father, brother David, her mother Bonnie and daughter Sandra, he protested Sandra's presence, whereupon provocation between Darwin and him started. Darwin struck the can of beer defendant was holding from his hand, and told him "If you mouth off I will knock your head off!" He also chastized Brenda for bringing Sandra. After some words Sandra was taken home by Brenda's mother. The facts which led up to the shooting are in conflict. Defendant testified that while the two women were at the car loading possessions Darwin and David began removing rods and drapery from the windows, and when defendant protested Darwin whirled and knocked him to the floor and started kicking him in the back and face. David joined in the fight, at which time defendant grabbed the gun from the drawer of the television set, and killed both of them when they again rushed him. Defendant then ran outside and backed his car into the car in which Brenda and her mother Bonnie were driving away. The impact knocked the car in which Brenda and Bonnie were riding into a ditch. Defendant grabbed Brenda from the car and started beating her. Brenda's mother drove to a neighbor's house to call the police. Bonnie and Brenda testified that before the first shot was fired they had just emerged from the house, and that there had been no trouble before the first shot. It is first contended by defendant that the court erred in excluding from the jury six persons who stated that they could not impose the death penalty under any circumstances that the exclusion of those persons from the jury violated the rights of the defendant guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States, under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Defendant cites Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S. Ct. 1770, 20 L. Ed. 2d 776, as supporting his position. We quote from the footnote, p. 1777, wherein it is stated: In Witherspoon, supra, and also in Bumper v. State of North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S. Ct. 1788, 20 L. Ed. 2d 797, the United States Supreme Court held that Witherspoon only applies where the death penalty is imposed on the accused. We so held in State v. Madden, 104 Ariz. 111, 449 P.2d 39. *582 The next question presented is of a much more serious nature. Defendant contends that the court erred in not granting the motion to sever the murder counts from the assault-with-intent-to-commit-murder count; defendant further contends that the court erred in permitting the wife to testify against the husband as to the murder counts. Defendant argues that he was compelled to take the stand, in view of his self-defense plea in the murder counts, and that the joinder forced him to also testify as to the assault count which he would not have done but for the joinder of counts. Brenda testified in regard to the conversation which occurred when she and the Parkses had gone to get her possessions at the home. She testified that defendant had stated, in referring to Sandra: Also that she said: She then stated that her mother took Sandra back to her grandmother's. There was also testimony in regard to the threatening of Brenda's life, and the writing of the so-called will and testament and the suicide note which read: Defendant contends that this and other testimony was highly damaging to him in the trial of the murder counts, and was not admissible, under § 13-1802, A.R.S.[1], and that an instruction to the jury not to consider this evidence in the trial of the murder counts was not sufficient in that a jury would not be able to do so in the determination of the guilt or innocence of a defendant under such facts. Rule 128, Rules of Crim. Proc., 17 A.R.S., which permits separate trials, provides: Under this rule the court, in its discretion, must determine whether the trial of two or more counts jointly is prejudicial to a defendant; and, if so found, the court must order that they be tried separately. The contention of the defendant that the court should have severed the trial of the murder counts from that of the assault-with-intent-to-murder count upon Brenda was based upon the argument that Brenda was not entitled to testify against the husband on the murder counts. If this testimony was admissible in the trial on the murder counts then the defendant's contention that it was prejudicial error not to grant the separate trials on this ground fails. This question hinges on whether the testimony of the wife against the defendant in the trial on the murder counts is admissible under the exception permitting a husband or wife to testify for "a crime committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the husband." In Zumwalt v. State, 16 Ariz. 82, 141 P. 710, we stated: This rule originated in the common law. See 58 Am.Jur. 124: This rule has generally been incorporated in the statute of the various states, and the exceptions to the rule are different in the different states. The exception of the disability of the wife to testify against her husband under common law was the crime committed against her person. Some of the courts, in interpreting and applying the statutory interpretation with reference to crimes against a spouse, have displayed a reluctance to depart from the common-law rule and to give the words "crime against a spouse" an extended meaning beyond that of the common law, and have held that the statutory exception is merely declaratory of the common law. 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, page 135. However, other courts have characterized this view as too narrow, and give it a more liberal construction on the theory that the elimination of the words "against the person" was intended to liberalize the construction of the words "crime against." The question is, did the legislature contemplate that only crimes which physically injure the spouse personally would fall within the meaning of the expression "crime against the other spouse"? Or, did it intend, in departing from the holding under the common-law term of crimes against the "person" of the other spouse, to broaden the crime to include any crime in which there was a personal wrong against the other spouse as a result of the commission of the crime? In Chamberlain v. State [Wyoming], 348 P.2d 280, in passing upon the question of *584 whether the wife was a competent witness against a husband, in a case in which the husband was charged with statutory rape against his stepdaughter, the court said: "* * * Also when asked by defense counsel if there was any question in her mind that her husband had carnal knowledge of the daughter, she replied unequivocally, `He absolutely did'. "Section 1-142, W.S. 1957, reads as follows: "`In no case shall the husband or wife be a witness against the other, except in criminal proceedings for a crime committed by one against the other, or in a civil action or proceeding by one or against the other, or an action brought by the husband for criminal conversation with or seduction of his wife, or in an action brought by either husband or wife for the alienation of the other's affections; but they may in all civil and criminal cases be witnesses for each other the same as though the marital relation did not exist.' "The only other statute we have which touches the subject is found in § 1-139, W.S. 1957, formerly § 3-2602, W.C.S. 1945, the applicable portion of which is as follows: "`The following persons shall not testify in certain respects: * * * * * * "`3. Husband or wife, except as provided in section 3681 [§ 1-142]. * * *' "The wording of the governing statute, like that of similar statutes in many other jurisdictions, needs interpretation. Legalistically speaking, a crime is never `committed by one against the other'. Crimes are committed against the state. Offenses against an individual are civil wrongs. See Wilkinson v. People, 86 Colo. 406, 282 P. 257; Dill v. People, 19 Colo. 469, 36 P. 229, 41 Am. St.Rep. 254. With this distinction in mind, are we to interpret the word `crime' to mean `wrong' in the context where in it is used? If it is logical to conclude the statute permits a wife to testify when she suffers wrong, even though she is not the physical victim of a criminal act, then the admission of her testimony in this case was not error. So we inquire what, if any, wrong did the mother suffer stemming from the rape of her daughter. * * * * * * "If all our legislature intended was simply to declare the common law exception of `cases involving corporal violence', it could unmistakably have done so by using those words. That it intended something more is made plain because the legislature used the broader phrase `crimes against the other'. A `crime' against the other, in legislative understanding, means, we think, as does Wigmore, nothing more nor less than a `wrong' against the other. Yet, as was suggested in Cargill v. State, 25 Okl.Cr 314, 220 P. 64, 67, 35 A.L.R. 133, a middle ground might well be taken. In that case the court said: "`* * * The rule that the injury must amount to a physical wrong upon the person is too narrow; and the rule that any offense remotely or indirectly affecting domestic harmony comes within the exception is too broad. The better rule is that, when an offense directly attacks or directly and vitally impairs the conjugal relation, it comes within the exception to the statute that one shall not be a witness against the other except in a criminal prosecution for a crime committed one against the other. In this sense the commission of rape by a husband upon a third person is not a crime against the wife within the meaning of our statute. * * *' "With this statement we can agree. However, where the rape is of the child of the wife, that offense is within the `better rule' for it not only vitally impairs the conjugal relation but comes specifically within the exception named in our statute, because it has caused a special wrong to the wife and has `particularly and directly' affected her in a manner other than that suffered by the public in general. "The criminal violation of her minor child undoubtedly caused as great or, more, likely, even greater pain and suffering to the mother than would have been caused by any act of physical violence inflicted upon the *585 wife's own person. We will not say that the degree of mental misery to the wife in this case, which was occasioned by the vicious and depraved act of her husband, allegedly committed just out of her immediate presence, with its consequences paraded in front of her very eyes, was a lesser wrong than any physical wrong inflicted upon her own body, but the covering quality of our legislative exception lies in the special, particular and personal nature of the wrong to the mother. "If seeking to follow the `spirit' of legislative purpose means anything, and if we would not kill the spirit of the act by a too specious adherence to its letter, we must hold, as we do, that the crime for which the defendant was prosecuted was one of such special wrong and such a personal offense against his wife as permitted her to testify against him. "In 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., it is stated in § 2239, p. 258: "`* * * By a liberal view, any injury to a spouse's child is a wrong to the spouse, and his or her testimony becomes admissible against the other. "`At common law, in the early practice, the notion of an injury to the wife was not regarded as including much more than those corporal brutalities which satisfied most gross and elementary conceptions of wrong. But as times have gone on, more refined distinctions have been countenanced; especially under the statutory exceptions for "crimes against the other", it has become possible for the Courts to take a broader view for sexual offenses by the spouse with a third person.' (Emphasis is that of Wigmore.)" The Arizona statute provides an additional exception in regard to rape, but this exception was not contained in the Wyoming statute. The principles of law as set forth in Chamberlain, supra, are applicable in the instant case. That principle is to allow the testimony in all cases in which the crime committed so closely touches or affects the other spouse as to render the reason for the rule promotion of marital peace and apprehension of marital dissension inapplicable. As stated in Wigmore on Evidence, § 2239, Vol. VIII: Colorado is another state which has adopted a broader interpretation of a similar statute. In O'Loughlin v. People, 90 Colo. 368, 10 P.2d 543, 82 A.L.R. 622, the court held that a husband could testify against his wife for the murder of her stepdaughter under a statute which provided: The court, in passing upon this question, stated: The testimony clearly shows that the reasons for not permitting a wife to testify against her husband are not present in the instant case because it had already been agreed that the marital relationship would be terminated. Brenda and her daughter were living with her parents and defendant had agreed to a divorce. Her father and brother had gone to assist in getting Brenda's things to take them home. They were helping her in getting her belongings at the time of the shooting. So, we are confronted with the question whether the killing of the wife's father and brother under these circumstances was a crime committed by the husband against the wife. We feel there is no distinction between the principle of law involved in this case and that enunciated in O'Loughlin v. People, supra, and in Chamberlain v. State, supra, holding that a crime committed against the spouse's child was a crime committed against the other spouse. We therefore hold that the testimony of Brenda was admissible against her husband in the murder charges, and for this reason the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a separate trial of the murder charges from that of the assault-with-intent-to-commit-murder charge on this ground. However, the defendant contends that it was prejudicial error not to sever the trial on counts I and II from count III *587 for the reason that he states that he was forced "to take the stand on count III, contrary to the Fifth Amendment." Defendant cites Meade v. State [Florida], 85 So. 2d 613, 59 A.L.R.2d 835, as supporting his position. However, the holding of the court in the Meade case was based upon the consolidation of two murder charges in which the defendant killed his victims with different instruments and in different ways. The court stated: Such a situation did not exist in the instant case. The acts in the crime of killing the father and the brother were related to the charge of assault with intent to murder the wife. Counsel for the defendant contends that "the joinder of the counts embarrassed and confounded his defense and was therefore prejudicial within the meaning of the Rule 128 (B)." We do not agree that the defendant was prejudiced in defense of count III by taking the stand. He had pleaded temporary insanity. In his testimony he described the fight between himself and the decedents. Then the testimony is as follows: The latter testimony was evidently for the purpose of supporting his plea of temporary insanity. This testimony could not have prejudiced his defense of temporary insanity. As a matter of fact, it supported his defense. We are therefore of the opinion that his rights were not prejudiced as to Count III by his having taken the stand. The substance of defendant's argument in his brief is that he was compelled to take the stand in his self-defense as to counts I and II that he was denied the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because this compelled him to take the stand as to count III. In no place does he show where he was prejudiced in his defense of count III by having taken the stand. If the court accepted this line of argument it would in effect prevent a joinder of counts, because defendant could always say that he had the right to take the stand as to one count but had the equal right not to take the stand as to another count. For the court to err in refusing separate trials a defendant must show prejudice. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405, 140 N.E. 465, 29 A.L.R. 281. No prejudice was shown in the instant case. Defendant next contends that the court erred in not directing a verdict of not guilty as to murder in the first degree. He claims there was no evidence upon which the jury could base a first-degree murder verdict. In his argument he stated that Brenda's testimony of the confrontation on November 15th was not admissible. We do not agree with this contention. It is a part of the difficulties leading up to the murders. In State v. Bearden, 99 Ariz. 1, 405 P.2d 885, we held: With the testimony of Brenda in the instant case, together with the other testimony, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find defendant guilty of first-degree murder. Defendant further states that this Court should reconsider the decision that a defendant cannot be shown unable to form a requisite intent, held in State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200, 403 P.2d 521, and should hold that the requested instruction in this regard should have been given. We see no reason for departing from our previous holding in this regard. Defendant, in his reply brief, calls attention to the sentence of the court on the assault-with-intent-to-murder charge which was for not less than ten nor more than twelve years to run consecutively with the sentences for murder under counts I and II which ran concurrently and which were for life. In State v. Howland, 103 Ariz. 250, 439 P.2d 821, we held that in a case where a defendant who received a sentence of not less than twenty-five years to life in a penitentiary, and a second sentence for twenty-five years to life to run consecutively, the second sentence had no definite starting date, and therefore, under § 13-1652, A.R.S., would have to run from date of delivery to the Arizona State Prison. For the same reason we hold that the sentence of not less than ten years nor more than twelve years on the assault-with-intent-to-murder charge started on the date of delivery of defendant to the Arizona State Penitentiary. Judgment as modified affirmed. UDALL, C.J., LOCKWOOD, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and HAYS, JJ., concur. [1] 13-1802. Anti-marital fact privilege; other privileged communications A person shall not be examined as a witness in the following cases: 1. A husband for or against his wife without her consent, nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent. 2. A husband or wife, during the marriage or afterwards, without consent of the other, as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage. This exception does not apply in a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by the husband against the wife, or by the wife against the husband, nor in a criminal action or proceeding against the husband for abandonment, failure to support or provide for or failure or neglect to furnish the necessities of life to the wife or the minor children. Either spouse may, at his or her request, but not otherwise, be examined as a witness for or against the other in a prosecution for bigamy or adultery, committed by either spouse, or for rape, seduction, the crime against nature or any similar offense, committed by the husband.