Case Name: The People, Respondents, v. Joseph Ledwon et al., Appellants
Court: Buffalo Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-12
Citations: 15 Misc. 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People, Respondents, v. Joseph Ledwon et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 280–287

Head Matter:
The People, Respondents, v. Joseph Ledwon et al., Appellants.
(Superior Court of Buffalo —General Term,
December, 1895.)
Homicide—Evidence.
A conviction of murder in the first degree will not be set aside because of the submission to the jury of the contradictory testimony of an unintelligent boy, the son of one .of the defendants, where such testimony was submitted with careful instructions as to its considera - tion, and the other evidence was sufficient to morally satisfy the mind ' of the guilt of the defendants.
White, J., dissents.
. This is an appeal by the. defendants from judgments of conviction rendered against the defendant Joseph Ledwon January 28,. 1895, and against the defendant Anna Ledwon on January 14, 1895, adjudging the said Joseph, guilty of murder in the second degree and adjudging the said Anna ■ guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, and from orders made herein on January 14 and 28; 1895, denying motions for new trials made by said defendants respectively, on the ground that the verdicts are contrary to law and against the evidence.
The appeal is also from an order made herein May 6, 1895, denying motions by the defendants for a new trial on the ground of néwly-discovered evidence.
Henry W. Hill and Edward W. Andrews, for appellants.
Daniel J. Kenefick, District Attorney (James C. Quackenbush, of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
Titus, Ch. J.
My associate has written an opinion in this case, in which he arrives at the conclusion that the conviction of both of these defendants should be reversed, principally for the reason that the testimony of the boy witness, Borowiec, was submitted to the jury for their consideration in determining the question of the defendants' guilt.
I cannot concur in the conclusion reached by him, that the verdict of the jury and the judgment of conviction should be reversed and set aside, and as a failure to agree with him results in affirming the judgment of conviction, I _ desire to state briefly my reason for the conclusion reached by me.
The witness Wladeslaus Borowiec is the son of the defendant Anna Ledwon and the deceased George Borowiec, and at the time of his death was eight years old, apparently not very bright or intelligent, timid and reserved to the extent that it was difficult tó obtain answers from him; brought up in surroundings of drunkenness and squalor, and with no moral training, he is necessarily and naturally inclined to shield those to whom he is accustomed to look for protection and support. With such surroundings, and under such conditions, if he was inclined to tell anything but the truth, it would be to tell a story which might seem to him most favorable to his mother, who was on trial for her life.
At the time of the death of Borowiec, the defendant Anna Ledwon, through'her assertion of the suicide theory, led the coroner to believe that no crime had been committed, and consequently no investigation by a jury into the cause of Borowiec's death was made, and from that time up to the time of the trial this boy has been and has constantly lived with ' or been surrounded, by friends of the defendant,, who insisted, that Borowiec killed himself. According to his own statement threats were made against him in ease he should testify . that the defendants killed his father. If it is not true that these defendants assisted in killing Borowiec, I am at a loss to.- see the motive for the hoy's story.. Eo reason is suggested,, and none is apparent, why. he should persist in telling' a lie for the purpose of .convicting his mother of this crime.
It is easy to understand why a boy of his age, and immature-as he is, should try to shield his mother, but why he should want to convict her by telling a falsehood is past comprehension, and no reason-is shown for it. But, on the other hand, there is abundant reason to explain why he should wish to-screen his mother.
The trial judge carefully presented the case to the jury and cautioned them against placing too much reliance on this boy's story. This evidence was characterized as " involved in a hopeless contradiction," and in submitting it to the jury the court said: "Ton are to take this boyas you saw him here, his age, his appearance upon the stand, his inability to. give, this in a detailed statement; and you are first to determine, is-he of that degree and order of intelligence that he is capable of determining in his own mind that he must tell the truth,, and would be -liable to be punished if he did not tell the truth,, and, consequently, will you place any reliance-upon his testimony which the court submits -to you under the peculiar cir- • cumstances of this case ? "
After calling their attention to his contradictory statements,. • the - court told the jury to examine the boy's surroundings, to see if he was • in position to have seen what he claimed he-did, and. if they were not satisfiéd that. his story was true beyond a reasonable doubt, then they should reject it, and give it no force at all. ' ' y
Aside from the evidence of the boy, one is led to the conclusion that Borowiec was brutally murdered during their, drunken debauch, 'stimulated thereto by excessive drink,, prompted by a desire to rid the wife and her paramour of an insuperable obstacle in the person of the husband to their undisturbed cohabitation.
The boy was present, and, while not knowing the motive of the act, as' he lay in his bed, was powerfully impressed with the fact that his father was being killed by these defendants and Zawaczki, and while undoubtedly efforts have been made to impress upon his mind the thought that his father killed himself, yet his telling of the scuffle and of their carrying him out impresses me with the conviction that ' he told the truth in that respect.
After the severe criticism of the boy's testimony by the trial judge, and after being told of the importance of a careful scrutiny of his testimony, the jury concluded he was telling the truth, and I think, under the instructions from the court as to their duty in weighing his testimony, they had the right to receive it and act upon it, and their conclusion I believe is fully warranted.
It may be truthfully said that this evidence is not of the. most satisfactory character, but when crime is committed amid such surroundings, where all present are more or less responsible and interested in suppressing the truth, the best and most satisfactory evidence cannot be obtained, and the witnesses must, from the nature of the situation, lack those high social and moral qualities which appeal most strongly to us, but, nevertheless, when the People have .produced the best evidence there is, and it is legally sufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty, if the jury are satisfied from it beyond a reasonable doubt, their finding should .not be disturbed. Especially is this the case where the evidence without the testimony of the boy morally satisfies the mind of the guilt of the defendants.
In this view of the case I am inclined to think that the evidence was properly submitted to the jury, and that the. judgment of conviction should be affirmed.