Lamson

The defendant David Lamson stands convicted of murder in the first degree, upon which conviction a judgment imposing the death sentence has been entered. He prosecutes this appeal both from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The case is purely one of circumstantial evidence. The charge is the murder of his wife Aliene, alleged to have occurred in their home on the Stanford University campus at Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, on the morning of May 30, 1933. This young couple had been married about four years and there had been born to them a daughter, then some two or three years of age. This small daughter was absent on the day in question, being away on a visit with the mother of defendant. The defendant had also residing in the vicinity, besides his mother, two sisters, one of whom, Dr. Margaret Lamson, is a practicing physician.

Defendant and his wife were both connected with the activities upon the university campus, she as secretary of the Y. W. C. A. and he as manager of the Stanford University Press, which published mainly scientific books. He also had some slight experience as an amateur actor. The couple moved in the best social circles and…

Whether or not the deceased met her death by accident or whether it was the result of a criminal agency presents a very close question of law. *664 The jury, by its verdict, found that the evidence proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, and that there was no reasonable theory or hypothesis upon which he could be innocent. The evidence is largely circumstantial and conflicting to the extent on the one hand that the cranial injuries which caused death could have been produced by an accidental fall, the back of the head striking against the rim of the washbasin, and on the other, to the effect that the cranial injuries could not have been inflicted by one impact but that they were the probable result of several blows. There is no satisfactory evidence of motive on the part of defendant and but slight, if any, incriminatory evidence which tends to support a wicked design to take life. Upon the nature and character of the wounds the inference of guilty or not guilty must flow. I am not prepared to say, as a matter of law, in the face of two opposing conflicting theories, neither of which is demonstrable to the degree of certainty, which the law…

I concur in the reversal of the judgment but not for the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion. From the evidence received in the case I am satisfied that there was sufficient upon which to base the conclusion that the deceased did not come to her death by accident and that the corpus delicti was established. *663 However, the defendant desired fully to rebut this showing. I am convinced that the trial court unduly restricted the defendant in his offer of proof of an experiment by which he proposed to show that when a woman of the size of the deceased was placed with her head upon the washbasin and her feet in the bathtub in said bathroom, and was allowed to slip from that position, she would always slip back into the bathtub. While ordinarily the trial court may in its discretion admit or reject testimony concerning experiments, I am satisfied that the refusal to admit such testimony constituted an abuse of discretion under the circumstances presented by the evidence in this case.

I think the trial court also erred prejudicially in unduly restricting the defendant as to' the tendered expert testimony on the question whether the fatal injuries could have occurred by coming in…

I concur in the judgment of reversal, on the same ground stated in my dissent in People v. Tedesoo, 221 Cal. 211 [ 34 Pac. (2d) 467 ], filed July 2, 1934. The two cases present the same question on appeal, namely, the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence introduced therein to sustain the judgment of conviction. In the instant case, in my opinion, the record does not conclusively establish either the guilt or the innocence of the defendant; but the law requires that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and the state has failed to meet the burden thus placed upon it, notwithstanding the fact that the record shows there was no lack of painstaking and intelligent effort put forth by both the sheriff and the district attorney to do so.

I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached in the concurring opinion, that reversible error was committed in the trial of the case. In my opinion, the alleged errors in admission and rejection of evidence, and the other claimed irregularities, did not, taken separately or together, so prejudice the defendant as to amount to reversible error.

The defendant David Lamson stands convicted of murder in the first degree, upon which conviction a judgment imposing the death sentence has been entered. He prosecutes this appeal both from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The case is purely one of circumstantial evidence. The charge is the murder of his wife Allene, alleged to have occurred in their home on the Stanford University campus at Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California, on the morning of May 30, 1933. This young couple had been married about four years and there had been born to them a daughter, then some two or three years of age. This small daughter was absent on the day in question, being away on a visit with the mother of defendant. The defendant had also residing in the vicinity, besides his mother, two sisters, one of whom, Dr. Margaret Lamson, is a practicing physician.

Defendant and his wife were both connected with the activities upon the university campus, she as secretary of the Y. W. C. A. and he as manager of the Stanford University Press, which published mainly scientific books. He also had some slight experience as an amateur actor. The couple moved in the best social…