Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1901-03-28

may be at common law, upon this state
OF facts, for, in our opinicn, the
statute OF this State is broad enough to
cover case of the kind here disclosed
There can be no question but that the
Legislature of this State had the power
to declare that the acts here pictured
constitute the crime of murder in this
State, and we now hold that the legis-
lative body has made that declaration.
Section q of the Penal Code reads as
follows:
"The following persons are liable to
punishmcnt under the laws of this
State:
IL All persons who commit, in whole
or 10 part, any crime within this State
2. All who commit larceny or rob-
berry out Of this State, and bring to, or
are found with the property stolen in,
this State.
t3. All who, being out Of this State,
cuuse or aid advise or encourage,
another person to commit crime
within this Stats. and are afterward
found therein. .
Subdivision / coyars the facts of this
case. The acts of defendant constituted
murder, and part of those auts were
done By her 10 this State. Preparing
and sending the poisoned candy to
Elizabeth Dunning, coupled with a
murderous intent, constituted an at.
tempt to commit urder, and defendant
could have beon prosecuted in this
State for that crime, if, for any reason,
the candy had failed to fulfil its deadly
mission. That being so, those acts
being sufficient, standing alone, to
constitute o crime, and those acts re-
sulting in the death of the person
sought to be killed, Dothin is palmer
than that the crime of murder was in
part committed within this State. The
murder being committed in pant in this
state, the 6eUtion of che law quoted
declares that persons committing muir
der under those circumstances ''are
liable to punishment under the laws OF
this State. The language quoted can
have but one meaning, and that is: A
person committing murder in part in
this State is punishable under the laws
OF this State the same as though the
murder was wholly committed in this
State.
Counsel for defendant insist ttat
this section only contemplates offences
committed by persons who, at the
time, are without the State. This con-
etruction is not sound. For as to sub
division |, it is not at all plain that a
person without the State could commit
in whole crime within the State
Again, II the crime in whole is COM
mitted within the State by person
without the State, such a person could
not be punished under the laws of this
State, for the State has not possession
OF his body, and there appears to be no
law by which it may secure that posses
sion. Indeed, all the subdivisions of
the section necessarily contemplate a
case where the person is or comes
within the State. If the trainers of the
section had intended by subdivision
to cover the case OF persons only who
we're without the State when the acts
were committed which constitute the
crime. they wouiu bave' inserted "a the
section the contingency found in the
remaining subdivisions, which sub
divisions contemplate q return to the
State OF the person committing the
crime. 1t is plain that the section was
intended to embrace all persons punish
able Under the laws Of the State of
California. The defendant having
committed murder in part in the
State Of California, ia punishable under
the laws of the State, exactly in the
same way, in the same courts and
under the same procedure, az if the
crime was committed entirely within
the State.
For the foregoing reasons the judg-
ment and orders are reversed and the
cause remanded.
Mrs. Botkin is, OF course, hopeful of
different result from the second trial,
but former Chief of Police Lees, who
had much to do with the first trial,
thinks the second trial will result the
same as the first, as about the same
witnesses will testify and there is no
reason to believe that there will be any
new evidence. The retrial has been
granted on technicality. A day for
the beginning of the trial will he fixed
shortly. In the meantime Mrs. Botkin
will remain where she now is, at branch
No. 3 of the county Jail.