The herald., 1896-03-12
The Supreme Court Opinion in
the Craig Case
THE MAIN POINTS INVOLVED
The Triple Killing q Precon ceived Plan
by the Murderer
To Extermlnate His Wifc's Family, as Shown
by Threats Previously Made by Craig.
Hence Only One Offense

The opinion of the supreme court in the
case of John Craig. the triple murderer,
affirming the judgment of the trial court,
was received at the Office of the clerk in
this city yesterday for fling. The opinion.
which is quite voluminous, is written by
Justice Harrison, and 10 concurred in by
the full bench, with tho exception o. JUS
tice Henshaw, who has been confined to
his house for some days by an accident.
and who was therefore not in attendance
when the matter was finally passed on.
The news that the verdict of the lower
court had been sustained, and that Craig
would have to expate his brutal crime on
the gallows, was received in this city by
telegraph several days ago, and published
in the HERALD. Since that time the ar
rival of the full opinion has been anxiously
awaited, especially by members of the blr,
who were anxious to see the full ruling of
the court ON the point on which it was
hoped to secure reversal, and on which
the members of the bar in this city were
| divided. Craig. it will be remembered,
killed three people, his wife, Emily, and
| his fatller-n-Iaw and mother-in-law, Will
| lam and Mary Hunter, besides wounding
his brother-in.law. He killed his wife and
shot his brother-in-law at the Hunter
ranch, near Tropico, after which he got in
his buggy and drove rapidly to the resi-
dence of the Hunters, on Buena Vista
street, arriving there about twenty minutes
after the first murder. The old people
were sitting out on the front porch. and
Craig, without any warning, opened fire on
! them, killing both almost instantly.
Craig was tried for the murder of his
wife. Hon. Henry T. Gage being retained
by the Hunters to assist the prosecution.
On this trial the little son of Craig was a
material witness against him. During the
trial Mr.. Gage raised the point that the
three murders were in effect one crime,
that all three persons had been killed in
carrying out a preconceved plan to eXter-
inmate his wife's family, as was shown by
the threats previously made by the muir
derer, and that testimony in regard to the
Hunter murders was admissible, as tend
ing to prove this plan. The defense con-
tended that this testimony should not be
admitted, for the reason that it tended to
establish a different crime than that for
which the defendant was OH trial.
lengthy argument took place on this point,
after which Judge Smith held that the evil
dence was admissible, to which the defense
took an exception, and it was on this ruling
that they mainly based the appeal to the
supreme court.
After reviewing the case at length, the
opinion concludes as follows, from which
it will be seen that the reasoning follows
very closely that of the prosecution on the
point involved:
1.-The defendant was witness in his own
behalf, and in recounting the crcum-
| stances under which the homicide was
committed, testified that the shooting of
| George Hunter was in self-defense, and
that in the effort to defend himself against
| him, one of the shots which he had in
| tended for him had accidentally struck his
wife and caused her death. For the pur-
| pose of defeating the claim of the defend
ant that the killing of his wife was acci-
dental, the prosecution called several wit
nesses in rebuttal, whose testimony was TO
the effect that immediately after the kill
ing the defendant left the house and drove
rapidly for distance of about three miles
to house on Buena Vista street in the
city of Los Angeles, arriving there within
twenty minutes after the killing of his
wife. got out of his buggy and went up to
the porch where William and NJ AIRY Hunter,
the father and mother of his wife, were
then sitting, and deliberately, without any
word or warning, killed them both. The
defendant objected to the introduction of
this evidence, and now urged it as error
for the reason that it tended to establish a
different crime from that for which he was
OH trial, and constituted no part of the
transaction connected with the killing of
his wife. The introduction of the evidence
is upheld by the prosecution on the ground
that the killing OF the father and mother.
and of the wife, was part of single plan,
outlined by the threats of the defendant,
and that this evidence tended to establish
this purpose on the part of the defendant
to exterminate the family, and thus char
acterizs and give point to his threats, and
to disprove the claim that the killing of
his wife was accidental.
We are of the opinion that this testimony
was properly admitted. Although a de-
PENDANT can be convicted for only the Of
Tense which he is charged with having COM
mitted, evidence which may have the ef-
feet to establish another crime than that
for which he is on trial. is not for that
reason inadmissible. If the evidence Of
fered is relevant to establish the crime for
which he is on trial, it ia not rendered ir-
relevant by reason OF the fact that it could
be used to establish another crime for
which he might be charged. Evidence of
material fact which tends to show the in.
tent or nature of the defendant, although
it tends to prove the commission of an
other offense by him, is relevant and adj
missible in = criminal action. Taken in
connection with the previous threats on the
part of the defendant against the Hunter
family, this testimony was relevant for the
purpose of showing the scope of those
threats and enabling the jury to determine
whether the killing of these persons was q
part of the execution of a single plan that
had existed in his mind. If the jury should
so determine, it would enable them more
readily to determine whether the killing of
his wife was also part of that plan, and
whether tue claim of the defendant that he
had accidentally shot her was we'll founded.
The court instructed the jury with refer
ence to this evidence that il could only be
considered by them in relation to the mo-
tive or intention of the defendant in firing
4 hat iii n; xu,ifn nd a.
they we're satisfied that the killing of Will
lam and Mary Hunter was in pursuance of