MUNN MURDER CASE

Stratford Evening Post, Issue 84, 25 June 1930, Page 4

MUNN MURDER CASE

EVIDENCE IN QUESTION ADMISSIBILITY IN DISPUTE COURT OF APPEAL AT WORK •WELLINGTON, June '24. The Court of Appeal, consisting the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers, K.C.), and Justices Herdman, "eed, Ostler and Adams, were engaged to-day hearing the argument of counsel on the question of the admissibility of certain evidence taken during the Munn murder trial. Munn was arraigned at the criminal sittings of the Supreme Court at Auckland in May of this year and charged with the murder of his wife, Lillie May Munn. He pleaded not guilty. Before the case for the Crown opened, it was agreed that the admissibility of certain passages in the depositions of witnesses taken in the Magistrate's Court should bo considered. Counsel for accused objected to the evidence which the Crown proposed to tender, and which was afterwards given, of Oliver Arthur Herbert Munn* Dorothy Ida Munn and Mavis Leone Munn, children of the accused by a first marriage, on the ground that the evidence tended to prove that, accused ,*as unkind and cruel to his wife in her life time, that he bore her ill-will and that the act of giving strychnine was designed and not accidental. Mr Justice Herdman decided that this evidence could be received, but the jury was warned at the trial that it pointed to a state of affairs some time distant from the date of the alleged murder, and that it was suggested by the defence that there was Jl-feeling between father and children. During the trial counsel for accused objected to the admission of this evidence. Counsel for accused also objected to the passage in the depositions of one, Mary Jane Brown, relating to a conversation which took place between her and deceased when she first visited the latter prior to her death. His Honour ruled that this evidence should be excluded. At the conclusion of the trial Munn was found guilty and sentenced to death. Two Questions

In pursuance of the objections taken by counsel, a case stated was prepared by Mr Justice Herdman, asking for the opinion of the Court of Appeal on these questions: (.¥) Was the evidence of the children properly admitted? (2) Was the said passage in the depositions of Mary Jane Brown properly excluded. Mr Northcroft (for the prisoner) said that the first question was the admissibility of the evidence of the children of accused by the first marriage. The two girls had lived with accused until two years before the death of the second Mrs Munn, The son had only left the home one year before Mrs Munn's death. The evidence of each of these children was broadly to the effect that Munn was of a domineering disposition in his matrimonial affairs; that he was quick to be angered and was violent to his wife. Such evidence was very little different to that which counsel was accustomed to hear in the maintenance courts in an action for separation based on cruelty, and such evidence was evidence not of any settled mental state concerning Munn and his wife but was merely evidence of Munn's behaviour under certain conditions. Mr Northcroft submitted that this evidence was too remote in point of time to be evidence of malice, especially as it was not inseparably connected with the allegation of murder, and secondly that the evidence was not accompanied by any declarations which would tend to prove that Munn was guilty of murder. The evidence of the children amounted to no more than evidence of a succession of domestic conflicts. Had it been that deceased was found in the house dead from violence, and it was sought to suggest that deceased had died from the very same type of violence as that described in the evidence of the children, then such evidence would be admissible. There must be some logical association between the facts sought to be proved and the type of cruelty described. The danger that evidence such as that in question inflamed the jury against the prisoner was undoubted. 'Evidence should not be admitted unless it would aid the jury in determiinng whether accused did or did not commit alleged murder. If the Crown could have brought evidence of cruelty to the wife right up to the time of her death, then there would be a logical association with the alleged crime, but where a long period of time intervened there was a distinct lack of association which rendered the evidence irrevalent. Mr Northcroft, on the suggestion of the Court, postponed his address on the other question for the opinion of the Court until after the reply.

Seeking a Motive For the Crown, Mr Fair submitted that the evidence of the children had been correctly admitted. Evidence of a type such as that, had for years past been admitted without objection in criminal cases in order to establish motive. The evidence of the children was admissible because it was relevant and was relevant in that it had tended to show motive. It was also relevant to rebut possible defences which might be raised by accused, such as lack of motive, intentfon of the taking of p.ison or the accidental taking of the same. The fact that the evidence of the children related to a period at least 12 months prior to the alleged crime did not render it inadmissible, for where it was a fair presumption to be taken that the state of mind of accused as described in the evidence would continue, such evidence was admissible, notwithstanding the lapse of time between the period referred to and the commission of the crime. Mr Fair contended that the evidence showed that there had been bad relations between husband and wife for over three years prior to her death. Lastly, the evideuce was also admissible in establishiner a motion. . ~,_..,. ' The Court, having mentioned that it would indicate to-morrow whether it Tired to hear Mr Northcroft on the admissibility of Mrs Brown's evidence, \ then adjourned.