Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-05-10

this point counsel for the defense raised
an objection to this and all testimony
tending to show that the murder was
an act of generalization. Mr.. Struck
meyer based his objection On the
ground that the Indictment Gid not
charge his client with murder in the
first degree. He said that the degree
of crime was not specifically mentioned
in the Indictment; that that was of
course not necessary, if the form of
the statute was followed in the descrip-
ton of the crime. but he contended
that that had not been done The OBJ
lection was overruled.
Ereda said that the woman turned
away or rather jerked away from Ro-
drigueZ, who appeared to be trying to
hold her. and then the first shot was
fired, quickly followed by another. The
woman fled toward the house of Jesus
Leyvas. followed by Rodriguez, who
overlook her and fired again, the wom-
an falling to her knees with her face
toward him and her hands appraised
and the rest of the witnesses story re-
Rodriguez ending in his capture half
hour afterward.
Several other witnesses were exam
ined as to the facts of the shooting, and
by the middle of the afternoon the
territory closed.
1t was stated by counsel for the de-
Tense during the examination of the
veniremen that there would be no dis
pute as to the killing. and il was init
mated that the defense would contend
that there was a want of premedita-
ton: that the act was committed in a
fit of sudden anger which the plaintiff
was the less liable to withstand by rea-
son of the fact of recent excessive
drinking.
Therefore the testimony ,of Rodri-
guez related chiefly to the amount of
liquor he had consumed in the few
hours previous to the shooting. He
said that the night before. before the
saloons closed at midnight, he bought
three bottles of beer and two pints of
whisky which he took to his room at
the Star lodging house. He said that
he drank a part Of one of the bottles
of beer before breakfast and the rest
of it in the morning together with one
of the bottles of whisky.
But the excellence of his memory on
cross examination was against him.
District Attorney Billiard led him over
all the events of the morning. He re-
lated every movement of the morning:
the meeting with his wife: the places
the lodging house and their move
ment to the place where the killing
took place. Everything was remem-
bered with distinctness up to within
very short time Of the shooting. when
the prisoners mind became a blank
But it cleared up quickly. He told of
incidents of his flight; Of the direction
of it, and Of his capture.
As to testimony that had been in
troduced concerning his statement to
the sheriff that he had been thinking
of killing his wife and of his determine
ton to kill her unless she would return
to him. Rodriguez denied that he had
been properly understood. He said that
he had said that he meditated her
death. but that he had told the sheriff
that he had been thinking about her
As TO the purchase of the liquor,
witness for the defense, a Mexican
who said he was with Rodriguez the
night before the murder, saw him buy
the three bottles of beer and two pints
of whisky.
The other witnesses for the defense
We're character witnesses. mostly from
Tucson. where Rodriguez formerly re-
sided. Among them was Nabor Pa
checO. a former sheriff of Pima coun-
ty. All these witnesses testified that
the reputation of Rodriguez was good.
but on cross examination they stated
that they had never heard it dis
cussed.
The testimony of the territory in re-
buttal will probably relate to the con-
dition of Rodriguez with respect to
sobriety the morning before the shoot
ing. the night before when he bought
the revolver with which the crime was
committed, and at the time of his cap
ture.