State v. Broadhurst
196 P.2d 407, 1948 Ore. LEXIS 214, 184 Or. 178 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An accomplice who is separately indicted for the same crime is a competent witness to testify for the state against the defendant, even if the charges against the accomplice are still pending. A conviction based on accomplice testimony requires corroboration by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
Facts:
- Gladys Broadhurst (defendant) bigamously married Dr. W. D. Broadhurst, a wealthy rancher, while she was still married to Leslie Lincoln.
- To deceive Dr. Broadhurst, Gladys claimed her first husband was deceased and that his identical, evil twin brother named 'Lester' was harassing her.
- Dr. Broadhurst hired a 23-year-old ranch hand, Alvin Lee Williams.
- Gladys traveled to California with Williams as her chauffeur, during which she seduced him, began an affair, and eventually secretly married him under a false name.
- During their time together, Gladys convinced Williams that Dr. Broadhurst was cruel and persuaded him to help murder Dr. Broadhurst so they could be together and inherit his estate.
- Shortly before the homicide, Gladys successfully urged Dr. Broadhurst to execute a will that left his entire estate to her.
- Gladys actively assisted Williams in his preparations for the murder, providing him with money to purchase a car, helping him procure a shotgun, and buying whiskey for him to bolster his nerves.
- Williams ambushed Dr. Broadhurst on a remote highway by feigning car trouble, struck him over the head with a wrench, and then shot him to death with the shotgun.
Procedural Posture:
- Gladys Broadhurst was indicted for the crime of first-degree murder in the circuit court.
- Following a jury trial, she was found guilty of first-degree murder.
- The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment.
- The circuit court entered a judgment against Broadhurst and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
- Gladys Broadhurst, the defendant, appealed from the judgment of the circuit court to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person who was separately indicted for the same crime as a defendant competent to testify as a witness for the prosecution at the defendant's trial before their own case has been resolved?
Opinions:
Majority - Bossman, C. J.
Yes, a separately indicted accomplice is a competent witness. While Oregon statutes at the time rendered a jointly indicted co-defendant incompetent to testify until their own case was resolved, those statutes do not apply to individuals charged in separate indictments. The common law rule, which holds that accomplices are competent witnesses, therefore applies. Further, Oregon's general evidence statute (§ 3-102, O.C.L.A.) makes all persons competent witnesses unless specifically excluded, and no statute excludes a separately indicted accomplice. The court also found that Williams's testimony was sufficiently corroborated as required by statute. The corroborating evidence need not be sufficient to convict on its own, but must fairly and legitimately tend to connect the defendant with the crime. Here, extensive corroboration existed, including: the defendant's adulterous relationship with and dominance over Williams; her direct participation in preparing for the crime (providing money for the car, obtaining the shotgun); her motive established by inducing Dr. Broadhurst to write a will in her favor; and her post-homicide conduct, such as fabricating evidence (the 'Sweet Pea' note and twin brother story), destroying evidence (letters), and attempting to create a false alibi for Williams.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between the testimonial competency of jointly indicted versus separately indicted accomplices under Oregon law at the time. It affirms the common law principle that a separately charged accomplice can testify against a co-conspirator, ensuring prosecutors can use testimony from the direct perpetrator to convict a mastermind who may not have been present at the crime scene. The case also provides a comprehensive illustration of what constitutes sufficient corroboration of accomplice testimony, demonstrating that a strong web of circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's motive, preparations, and post-crime conduct, can satisfy the statutory requirement and sustain a conviction.
